February 25, 2009

A question for discussion

There's greatness in the speech and it's worth watching for the points posed by Reagan and for his eloquence. But watch specifically at 3:58. Reagan states, "Those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."


The rephrasing of the Benjamin Franklin quote (They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety), puts the question in the lap of liberals - we are trading freedom not for security from terrorists but security from poverty and the tyranny of an intellectual elite, domestically.

Is that the real meaning that Benjamin Franklin had for his phrase? Given the environment of a fledgling government and the issues the revolution had been created from, I'm sure his attention was on domestic government tyranny. And if that's the case, has the phrase been unfairly co-opted by the left in their Bush Derangement Syndrome driven fight against the Homeland Security measures?

Thoughts?

10 comments:

  1. Great question. Any time we are willing to trade our freedom for anything, be that peace or prosperity, we do not deserve anything. There is nothing so valuable as our freedom. And, we seem so willing to give that up, without a fight even, in order to get "something". I hear people saying that the government needs to do something to fix the problem with the economy, but the government taking over the rights of its citizens is never the answer. Thanks for opening the dialogue!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great feedback mcgburson. I agree. Hopefully others will comment. I think there's a lot of spectrum available for viewpoints on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree, and I think Franklin probably meant both, or at least was open to the possibility of meaning both. It's sad that we live in a culture of adult babies who really have no interest in freedom--because freedom means responsibility, it means that success is not guaranteed. With freedom comes the obligation to work hard and the possibility of failure, and a lot--probably most--of the people in this country are unwilling to deal with that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that we wrongly apply the Constitution to every person on Earth, giving far too many "rights" to non-citizens and not revoking citizenship when we need to. We should be protecting this country proactively, making sure that those who enter have no intention to harm or destroy it in any way. And to preserve the freedoms in this country, one must abide by the established laws. Deviation from the Constitution should be treated severly to the point of treason. That ensures that freedom remains for the supporters of the Constitution and that we do not undeservingly give away what we are protecting and preserving.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Austin: Your points are spot on. In fact, even the possibility of failure does not guarantee poverty or doom. There's still a social safety net, so failure comes at a price that is not so steep as to be insurmountable.

    There's no reason to fear freedom, though many seemingly do. That's what keeps America's democratic 'experiment' constantly in danger of disappearing, and constantly in need of vigilence. I guess this is where I mention the Fairness Doctrine...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mom2giqm: The Constitution will not be grabbed away, but rather stripped away in small pieces. Think 'death by 1000 paper cuts'.

    Vigilent defence of the Constitution 100% of the time is tough when it's being assailed on all sides and it can happen at any time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That temporary safety that Ben Frankin mentioned is exactly what 'The One' keeps preaching about with his false promises of 'yea, free healthcare and money for all!.' It doesn't work that way, because to have any of that means that we Americans have to sacrifice our liberties to accomplish them. No, sorry this is America and we have a constitution to abide by and if our own government can't do that then we the people must let them hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow they could of played this last night as the Republican response and it would of been spot on and it is 50 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joanna: There is no such thing as free health care. Trust me on that - I'm Canadian. Seen it, live with it, hate it. Slow, inefficient, and the system is cracking under the strain. Many people here are smug about it but the price is very high, and not just financially.

    You live in an exceptional country - I'm envious. Don't let the socialists bring you down the 'Shining Path'. Bad, bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great question; the answer is simple to state but hard to implament. only enough security to ensure freedom. Government has the attority only to do what the people allow, but we keep going to sleep for decades and wake up and wonder how we let it get this far.

    ReplyDelete

Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This