Freedom vs. Security

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This is a commonly known phrase attributed to Benjamin Franklin. One of the reasons it is so well known is because the American Left paraphrases it (in possibly the sole example of them not showing open animus towards the Founders of this country) ad nauseum when talking about law enforcement/defense policy/the intelligence community/etc. But they certainly don't believe in the idea espoused by this quote. And for proof, we need only look at their policies. The entirety of the American Left's economic policies is predicated on the idea that economic freedom MUST be given up in the name of economic security. I mean, one of the most egregious acts of theft of economic liberty in this country goes under the name Social SECURITY. So with this in mind, I'm asking any liberals out there, why the cognitive dissonance? Is it because you actually don't want security when it comes to law enforcement/defense policy/the intelligence community/etc? I mean, I get disagreeing with Franklin, but to cite this quote, and then do the exact opposite...? What's the deal?

 

Too much security undercuts risk and initiative needed for freedom , but without security freedom disappears. The challenge is to get the balance just right. I think you have a narrow defenition of economic freedom that focuses only on liberty for the commercial class. Liberalism and certain parts of the American left have tried since the early 20th century to focus on the equal right to individual liberty and the common good by providing some measure of security against deprivation that comes from periodic economic crisis and poverty.

 

The American left does not espouse this or care about this anymore than the American right. The only people who do are libertarians.

 

How temporary is temporary.

I doubt that when Benjamin Franklin said that he was envisioning more than 10 years without an end in sight.

 

"Too much security undercuts risk and initiative needed for freedom , but without security freedom disappears."
Certainly true. But the only "security" necessary for economic liberty is protection of property rights.

"I think you have a narrow defenition of economic freedom that focuses only on liberty for the commercial class."
Then you think incorrectly.

"Liberalism and certain parts of the American left have tried since the early 20th century to focus on the equal right to individual liberty and the common good by providing some measure of security against deprivation that comes from periodic economic crisis and poverty."
Liberalism has most certainly not. What the U.S. calls "liberalism" (which is ironically the exact opposite) certainly does. But the true definition of liberalism is reflected with talk on the international scale of liberalization of certain tyrannical economies. And here , when you claim "have tried since the early 20th century to focus on the equal right to individual liberty and the common good by providing some measure of security against deprivation that comes from periodic economic crisis and poverty." I'm not disagreeing, but you prove my point. I am not attempting to say that sacrificing liberty for security is a bad thing (though it is.) What I'm saying is that the Left is hypocritical for constantly trotting this phrase out, and then disagreeing with it in toto when it comes to economics.

 

"The American left does not espouse this or care about this anymore than the American right."
To be perfectly honest, I agree. But I never said they did. But despite not espousing the idea, they do trot this phrase out when it means they get a chance to argue in favor of not defending the U.S. Again, I know that they say this without believing it, but that's my entire point.

 

After looking at bipartisan support for the Patriot Act, NDAA, and CISPA I don't believe either party has the best interests of liberty at heart.

 

The problem is words like "property rights" have become code for large corporations not homeowners, family farmers, or even small business. At the same time economic security in the libertarian or rightwing usage does not apply to a living wage for workers, their right to unionize, unemployment insurance, or social security rather we think of ecnomic security in terms of little or no regulation and taxation on corporations. This allows those with the most money more power and influence over the everyone else without being accountable.

Think about what it means to individuals and the communities where they live when a company gets tax incentives to locate there, when it lays off workers, or decides to relocate somewhere else. What about public health and the quality of life where their is pollution. What happens to workers, homeowners, or small business when reckless speculation and trading in financial markets drag the whole economy down ? Ordinary people are deprived of material resources whether its wages, savings, or wealth tied up in a home so this means they do not have choices or the ability to become what they want. This is not liberty. For this reason they need a certain kind and quantity of security.

 

I disagree. But then, I'm a lefty.

The way I see it, social security is a necessary tool for making people free.

 

How so?

 

How so?

 

The meaning of freedom has changed drastically from its original meaning. Ama-gi was the first word for freedom in which slaves debts were ended. Note that the contract between the slave(debter), and the creditor was broken so technically never repayed. I'd say the idea that one must pay debts is stupid and enforcing it like is done today to a degree is even more oppressive and less about freedom. When one makes a contract of debt with a debter they are not entitled to their money back. If I went into a bank and asked for 100000 dollars to bet on a horse race that I had a good feeling about they would laugh at me sensibly but if repayment was assured why would they deny me.

The idea that freedom relates to private property or even the prevalence of private property developed from the bases of roman law where one could do whatever they wished with their property. All other laws are exceptions even to this day. This "freedom" must always be balanced with security and the balance varies greatly from individual to individual. For example Benjamin's views on slavery differed from the other founding fathers who thought their slaves were not entitled to freedom and it had to be secured from them. Which most of use would disagree with today.

 

Funny that I see "social security" mentioned in this thread but not referring to the tax that I must pay for "social security." You know, the one that has reached a point where we are paying more into the ponzi scheme than will we ever receive back.

"security" in the sense of keeping you safe from al-queda, who our own protectors are supporting in the middle east, is also a complete farce.

Government is a complete farce.

 

By taking from what they earn, and could probably use now if they are low-income, and promising to, perhaps, give them something many years down the road that represents a -25% return on what was taken from them. If they live long enough.

It's freedom from responsibility.

 

... Right... Hence the "I agree" that you quoted me as saying... What did you think I was talking about...? But as I said, both sides favor security over liberty. The difference is that the Left constantly trots out some form of the quote I started this thread with when they want to oppose measures in defence of the U.S. Again, you and I agree that both sides favor security (or more accurately perceived security) over liberty. But my point was that the Left is hypocritical about it, as they constantly trot this quote out, where as the Right tends to be more open about the fact that they are willing to make that trade off. So the question is, if both sides agree, who's worse? The side that is open about the trade-off, or the side that wants the trade-off, but lies about it?

 

Do Republicans and conservatives utilize social security? or is it only available for use by liberals/democrats? There is no cognitive dissonance; rather that's your interpretation and speculation.

 

i'm guessing you're referring to the detain "anyone" bill? the bill that lets them use military action to eliminate targets shown to conclusively have ties to alciada? you do know that by making that open to "anyone" they mean what's his face that they killed for being number 2 alciada man and one more funny bit, past presidents. you do know that right? so far he's taken down Osama, a few dozen number 2 men, AND the guy republican presidents couldn't kill for 18 consecutive years, moammar gadhafi. yaknow, ummm, what was your point? Republican presidents wouldn’t do anything what so ever to amadinajad or kim jun un. they’d just corner them and extort money for campaign funds. i would rather there not be any more immortal people out there doing us terrible deeds and paying white collar criminal reelection funds. that's just me tho.

 

"The problem is words like "property rights" have become code for large corporations not homeowners, family farmers, or even small business."
... Maybe to you. I personally no exactly zero people who would define that phrase in this manner, and I've never heard it from anyone I don't know, present company excluded.

"At the same time economic security in the libertarian or rightwing usage does not apply to a living wage for workers, their right to unionize, unemployment insurance, or social security rather we think of ecnomic security in terms of little or no regulation and taxation on corporations."
This could not be less true. What do you think the entire point of this thread is? It's not that Libertarians/the Right don't define economic security in this manner, but rather that they are not willing to give up liberty to achieve security, which they do define including all of those things. Not agreeing with something is not the same as not misdefining it.

"This allows those with the most money more power and influence over the everyone else without being accountable."
I don't know what made this more unreadable. The economic illiteracy or the English illiteracy.

"Think about what it means to individuals and the communities where they live when a company gets tax incentives to locate there, when it lays off workers, or decides to relocate somewhere else."
You're proving my point. You feel that the economic security brought on by tax incentives, not laying individuals off, or not relocating is a fair trade off for restricting the liberty of the company. Franklin would disagree. And again, both sides feel that in some cases liberty should be traded for security. My point is you are most likely inconsistant, as you believe that economic liberty should be abolished in favor of economic security, but I'll bet you cry foul when civil liberties are sacraficed for national security. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just pointing out the inconsistancy.

"What happens to workers, homeowners, or small business when reckless speculation and trading in financial markets drag the whole economy down ?"
a.) Again, the economic illiteracy of the "reckless speculation" nonsense is unbearable, and
b.) Again, I understand your argument. You're proving my point. You want to take away the freedom of individuals and companies in an effort to increase the security of indiviuals. That is my entire point exactly.

"Ordinary people are deprived of material resources whether its wages, savings, or wealth tied up in a home so this means they do not have choices or the ability to become what they want."
Wow. There is exactly nothing right about that. It means EXACTLY that they "have choices or the ability to become what they want."

"This is not liberty."
Wow. I strongly suggest that you invest in a dictionary. Liberty is a good thing. Security is a good thing. But them both being good in no way suggests that they are the same thing. A "living wage" is an issue of security. But it is the exact opposite of liberty. The minimum wage or a "living wage" are the State telling an employer whay he can pay for labor, and for that matter what an employee can charge for labor. The State telling you you can not do something is on occasion security. But it is never liberty.

"For this reason they need a certain kind and quantity of security."
This is exactly my point. You value security, but you do not value liberty. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but you are being dishonest, both by calling security liberty, and by favoring economic security of economic liberty while climing to abhor the trade-off of civil liberty for national security.

 

"The way I see it, social security is a necessary tool for making people free."
This literally could not be more wrong. Social Security is one of two things. It is either a forced trust, as the Government claims, or it is a Ponzi Scheme. While it is obviously the latter, as I said, the Government claims it is the former. So let's examine. Social Security as a forced trust is just that. Forced. It is the State demanding that you dispose of your property as it sees fit, namely saved for retirement. How is not being allowed to spend the fruits of your labor the way you see fit liberty? No one has ever made that claim. That's why it's called Social Security, not Social Liberty or Social Freedom. But let's look at the Ponzi Scheme (the much more reasonable analysis) paradigm. Here the Government takes the fruits of the labor of the young to pay the old. Again, this is in no way liberty. Liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc. But the Government interferes, controls, obligates, restricts, and hampers necessarily with money for Social Security. That is the very definition of Social Security. You can argue that Social Security is good, but to call it freedom is a bald faced lie.

 

Starving people aren't free, I figure. Philosophically, I understand the whole mystical 'you can't be free unless you're willing to starve' thing, but practically speaking, food benefits freedom.

I think social security is a good reason to work and make money. The portion of your income that is taken and put into social security is helping people. I understand the libertarian objection that is done against the worker's will and without their consent, and I agree that ideally this would be done on an entirely voluntary basis. Maybe we don't need the government to run social security, maybe we can do something like what the decent churches (nearly as rare as decent governments and for basically the same reason) used to do, where no one is forced to contribute but we are all inspired to freely give to make sure the widows and orphans get taken care of (personally I think entirely too much money ends up going to elaborate window displays but I'm told that's a necessary part of the inspiration process). But social security, where we all chip in to make sure that our society is secure is a good idea and it makes people free.

We do still have some bugs to work out. As in, it's not okay to force people to participate whether they like it or not. But if we're really going to stick to that principle, then the entire economy and most of society is going to have to undergo a complete overhaul and we may end up with a serious reduction in resources. Which is maybe not the end of the world, either.

Lately, I'm thinking that our big mistake was inventing agriculture. God didn't design us to be farmers, God designed us to be gardeners. But that's just, y'know, hippy nonsense ...

 

You have to regulate water flow to keep it flowing freely, just like traffic. Some regulations can certainly help the cause of freedom. Like, property rights. Everybody likes those, right? Property rights are a regulation and they require government enforcement. They are a restriction of freedom against everybody except the property owners, by definition, but we still all recognize that some kind of private property has to exist for people to be free, unless we're all just going to turn into Dragon Warriors and exist on gingko leaves and universe juice and not need possessions. Social security is no different than property rights in this regard, except that it helps more people.

 

i'm guessing you're referring to the "detain anyone bill?" the bill that lets them use military action to eliminate targets shown to conclusively have ties to alciada? you do know that by making that open to "anyone" they mean what's his face that they killed for being number 2 alciada man and one more funny bit, past presidents. you do know that right? so far he's taken down Osama, a few dozen number 2 men, AND the guy republican presidents couldn't kill for 18 consecutive years, moammar gadhafi. yaknow, ummm, what was your point? Republican presidents wouldn’t do anything what so ever to amadinajad or kim jun un. they’d just corner them and extort money for campaign funds. i would rather there not be any more immortal people out there doing us terrible deeds and paying white collar criminal reelection funds. that's just me tho.

 

Government has traditionally been a poor protector of property rights because it can, through the monopoly on the legal use of force, take the property of some to give to others. The Social Security program takes, by the implicit threat of violence, from those who produce wealth, and gives it to others. It is nothing like property rights in any regard. It is the exact opposite.

 

In comparison to ...?

 

Agreed. Such laws should be repealed, as they are violate property rights and are immoral.