This question was asked on C-span this morning. I thought I'd pass it along.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Agree or disagree?

Happy Birthday to Ben Franklin! It's his 300 year birthday.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

You cannot defend liberty or freedom by agreeing to reduce liberty or freedom.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I can agree only partially. After all, we have a military to protect our security. That is the primary basis for the state's existence (national defense). We would have more liberty without the existence of government than with it, but nonetheless we have to sacrifice a certain degree of liberty for security. On the other hand, once certain liberties are guaranteed in a Constitution, violating that Constitution is the ultimate threat to both liberty and security.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Force,
You seem like a thoughtful person. I've noticed that your answers seem indecisive. In another post, you said you don't vote because you can't choose between two bad candidates. I feel that sometimes you just have to stand up and make a choice and not stand on the sidelines.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

seeing as this quote was my original signature when I joined this forum, yeah, I agree.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

In most contexts yes. But like most quotes there are probably some contexts it can be used for that I wouldn't agree with.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Not one republican votes? No opinion on Ben and his beliefs?

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Like Force and Java, I can't be in complete agreement.

The statement made a lot more sense when it wasn't possible to incinerate entire cities with a single attack.

Well, it works both ways. Conservatives (at least uncompromising ones) believe that we should give up certain privacy rights and the right not to be imprisoned without trial. They support suspending such rights in the belief that such government powers could protect us from terrorism. On the other hand, liberals believe that we should give the government control of much of our money to protect the poor. I give qualified agreement to the latter idea though none to the former as it is currently being carried out.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

But I don't believe that Franklin meant it in an idealistic, black and white way like the ACLU does. I think he meant it in the context of the American Revolution, which was a time of completely different problems than today.