Good afternoon everybody! Earlier this week I dropped Benjamin Franklin's Famous Quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty...
Good afternoon everybody!
Earlier this week I dropped Benjamin Franklin's Famous Quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" in a conversation with a friend.
After some days had passed, she wanted to know more about it and that motivated me to dust of and post some of my notes on the quote's origins online.
I figured some here would appreciate the added context and it'd be interesting hearing your thoughts about the alleged "contextomy" this particular excerpt has been the object of.
Which parts specifically? Feel free to pose your questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I've been meaning to write in detail about which components one is likely to require in the course of...
Thanks, this was an interesting read.
Sure thing, it's my pleasure!
I am curious about the platform running your webpage.
Which parts specifically? Feel free to pose your questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I've been meaning to write in detail about which components one is likely to require in the course of common and not-so-common blogging escapades, but it's been sitting in my drafts for ages.
If by platform you are referring to the hosting platform, I'm using GitLab Pages. I like GitLab Pages for many reasons but you can read more about it here; full disclosure I am a contributor to GitLab.
In case you're interested in tech or you don't shy away from getting a bit technical, I think using git, GitLab and a simplified CI/CD workflow is great for bloggers; I wouldn't be able to manage all bits and pieces to my liking without the aforementioned tools.
It looks really nice. How do you like it?
Thank you! It took me quite awhile to stabilize everything and get it to a point where I was happy both with the style as with the format and nature of the content I could publish, but nowadays I'm quite satisfied.
I think the idea of pushing commits to manage content is really interesting. I will have to look at the static site generation in more detail. Which generator are you using? We used to run gitlab...
I think the idea of pushing commits to manage content is really interesting. I will have to look at the static site generation in more detail. Which generator are you using?
We used to run gitlab at a startup I was in years ago, and it was a great tool.
I can't recommend it enough. I'm not using any particular generator; for the structure management I'm using Sphinx. However, I am very fond of Pelican, some people love Hugo and Jekyll is probably...
I will have to look at the static site generation in more detail.
I can't recommend it enough.
Which generator are you using?
I'm not using any particular generator; for the structure management I'm using Sphinx. However, I am very fond of Pelican, some people love Hugo and Jekyll is probably still the biggest out there.
We used to run gitlab at a startup I was in years ago, and it was a great tool.
Yes, I think in general more non-technical people should learn the ropes of git. That was somewhat the intention behind my git tutorial at the time, although more technical as non-technical people seem to have found value in it.
I have also tried to convince my non-technical friends and they mostly aren't interested. Although to be fair, if what you mostly do is make google docs (or word docs) all day, I can see where it...
I have also tried to convince my non-technical friends and they mostly aren't interested. Although to be fair, if what you mostly do is make google docs (or word docs) all day, I can see where it would not see natural.
It's a good line, but it's vague, since what counts as an "essential" liberty is left to the imagination. It also seems rather judgmental about what people "deserve." Ideally, everyone would have...
It's a good line, but it's vague, since what counts as an "essential" liberty is left to the imagination. It also seems rather judgmental about what people "deserve." Ideally, everyone would have liberty and safety, even those who aren't so wise and don't make good decisions.
It's a meme, basically. Don't let memes do your thinking for you. There's a saying for every occasion, often contradictory: "you must look before you leap" but "he who hesitates is lost."
The reason they deserve neither is quite apparent in the quote, that's what makes it brilliant: They gave up their Liberty to get the temporary safety. They lost their safety, because it was...
The reason they deserve neither is quite apparent in the quote, that's what makes it brilliant:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
They gave up their Liberty to get the temporary safety. They lost their safety, because it was temporary. They got what they asked for.
Thus, they get what they deserve.
It also helps that its well understood that liberty is an ill-defined blob like Tilde's moderation rules, for somewhat similiar reasons.
Agreed, but not so much in the context at hand: systematic land taxation. This was the allegedly "non-essential" liberty being discussed and at stake. It was, of course, at odds with the...
It also helps that its well understood that liberty is an ill-defined blob
Agreed, but not so much in the context at hand: systematic land taxation.
This was the allegedly "non-essential" liberty being discussed and at stake. It was, of course, at odds with the "essential" liberty of "true" safety, as in by destining and having the means to work on a coherent response to threats.
That does make sense, and cases need to argue which liberty is more important in that context. I'd agree that security of ones community does trump not having ones (ill-gotten) assets taxed.
That does make sense, and cases need to argue which liberty is more important in that context.
I'd agree that security of ones community does trump not having ones (ill-gotten) assets taxed.
I think of it as sort of like the midwit meme which is often used to assert that some idea that sounds dumb is also what an intelligent person would say, and the complications a "midwit" would add...
I think of it as sort of like the midwit meme which is often used to assert that some idea that sounds dumb is also what an intelligent person would say, and the complications a "midwit" would add aren't actually all that essential if you know more. Sure, some ideas are like that, but what about this one? Does it really fit?
Similarly, the "temporary safety" and the "essential liberty" need to be filled in based on context, and then you can decide whether the "essential liberty" is actually all that essential and whether the "little temporary safety" is actually less important and temporary. You can't tell from the quote whether it's being used in a way that makes sense. It's just asserting it to be true in a clever way.
You touch upon many points but I'll address those are believe are your two main ones: the alleged vagueness of Franklin's statement as well as quotes as mere memes and placeholders for active...
You touch upon many points but I'll address those are believe are your two main ones: the alleged vagueness of Franklin's statement as well as quotes as mere memes and placeholders for active thinking.
It's a good line, but it's vague, since what counts as an "essential" liberty is left to the imagination.
I disagree, it is as concrete as it can be, and as vague as the subject matter he deals with in his writing is. We must remind ourselves it's political, not mathematical, sources we're dealing with and, what's more, a controversial and highly important matter in which all involved parties had considerable stakes is being discussed. It is, then, natural that any particular utterance removed from its context and even if presented in context could be characterized as "vague".
Franklin's quote, however, is anything but, even more so since we have two instances of him using it, also multiple variants, and this can be said to present a framework of thinking and statesmanship which remains consistent over the decades, in many regards, and allows one to further reduce the alleged vagueness of said quote.
I'm sure you and I, as is anyone quoting an excerpt from an 18th century politician, are aware of the need to contextualize any such quote to modernity in order to, if at all, make it relevant and useful. In the context it was uttered, it was non-vague as he and his peers went on and on trying to explain how their propositions were reasonable.
The liberty of which Franklin speaks of in 1755 is very clear: the ability to defend oneself with aid only insofar ones own independence isn't hindered as desired by the freemen of Pennsylvania.
The liberty of which Franklin speaks of in 1775 is very clear: the liberty not to be taxed based on land possessed.
In modernity the context is provided in the article, opposing surveillance, supporting small-government and no systematic taxation.
Yes, I am aware the interpretation above was only necessary because of the vagueness of the statements being discussed, but this would apply to any non-mathematical subject we set ourselves to discuss.
It also seems rather judgmental about what people "deserve." Ideally, everyone would have liberty and safety, even those who aren't so wise and don't make good decisions.
It seems you assume being judgmental is necessarily a bad thing, and I disagree with that stance. I am, as you are, judgmental of an incredibly high number of things. For one, you seem to be judgmental of being judgmental. In the interest of constructive discourse, if what you mean is that Franklin is judgmental for no reason, than I wholeheartedly disagree.
Franklin is not being judgmental towards the unsuspecting people who "who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety" just because. He points out, in the context provided but also on numerous occasions and in several writings, that a liberties require the construction, furtherance and preservation of a system which protects those very same liberties. In the context of the quote Franklin is being extremely judgmental, and rightly so, of individual who, knowingly or not, wish to enjoy, by choice or happenstance, the liberties afforded by the system to them but refuse to make the necessary sacrifices for its construction, furtherance and preservation.
It's a meme, basically. Don't let memes do your thinking for you.
This seems, enjoyable puns, very judgmental. Everything is a meme, every word you write use, every thought you and I probably have is a meme or composed mostly of interconnected memes; and let's not get started on culture. So, what's wrong about memes? Furthermore, science is 90% quoting each other, 9% thinking and 1% writing interesting new-ish thoughts.
Having made that tongue-in-cheek remark, quotes, at least to me, are anything but placeholders for thinking and I disagree anyone should see them that way. You see, I, but I'm sure may others do so, went to great lengths to understand what was meant and did, in the process, probably even more thinking that I would have done in case I hadn't used the quote or incorporated it into the way I see the world.
A final point about my perspective on quotes I'd like to share is the following: it is awfully inefficient and taxing to go about discussing any particular topic with others while having to reference, cross-check and re-examine the full context, history and pedigree of any argument. Quotes are, if used properly, honestly and respectfully, a great way to encapsulate an argument and it's zeitgeist for the sake of conversation. It shows, generally and if not parroted about without explanation or ability to delve deeper, that the user is informed and able to understand the micro or macro aspects of the arguments out of the context and reach some level of abstraction, which the other interlocutor will hopefully agree with.
There's a saying for every occasion, often contradictory:
Certainly, but there's not a frame of thinking for every occasion and that's where you should, in my opinion, seek consistency. Assuming any party of the conversation isn't engaging in a marvelous display of mental gymnastics.
"you must look before you leap"
This is always right.
"he who hesitates is lost."
This is always wrong.
Consistency in frame of thinking and differentiated usage of properly contextualized excerpts; isn't language great?
Yes, I'm being judgemental, but in a different way. I'm saying some slogans sound more meaningful than they really are, and this is one of them. The phase is about being judgemental about a...
Yes, I'm being judgemental, but in a different way. I'm saying some slogans sound more meaningful than they really are, and this is one of them.
The phase is about being judgemental about a hypothetical someone who made a bad trade, but presumably they thought it was a reasonable trade and they got snookered. This is blaming some hypothetical victim.
People who make bad trades get what they deserve? This is a just-world fallacy. Injustice happens everywhere, often randomly. Sometimes people benefit from risky trades because they got lucky, or suffer after making what seemed like a good trade at the time, but then something else happened.
We can get something closer to justice when people do something about it. Sometimes justice is about going to court to reverse bad trades that were fraudulent or somehow illegitimate. But usually this doesn't happen. The capacity of the justice system is limited.
And since the context was a debate about policy, this is also collective blame. When a legislature makes a bad deal, the people get what they deserve? What is that?
The victim isn't really the point, though. It's just saying it's a bad trade, in flowery language.
If using this phrase reminded us of some specific bad trade, it would be reasoning by analogy. I guess it's saying that some new policy dispute is sort of like the American Revolution, somehow? But that's too vague to be of much use. The context has been lost from most people's memories, turning it into an empty catch-phrase. Learning the history is interesting but it doesn't really help.
Bad trades exist but it's a matter of opinion whether any specific trade is bad or not. Adding some flowery language doesn't really make the case for it, and the fact that Franklin said it doesn't really add anything.
You are refusing to acknowledge the agency of these so-called victims, which they aren't and even if they were it would be irrelevant to the gist of the slogan. As mentioned above, these...
This is blaming some hypothetical victim.
People who make bad trades get what they deserve?
You are refusing to acknowledge the agency of these so-called victims, which they aren't and even if they were it would be irrelevant to the gist of the slogan. As mentioned above, these individuals chose to leverage their agency in order to weasel out of sacrifices required by the system they themselves profit from and enjoy, by choice or happenstance, which in turn protects said benefits and the liberties they choose to selfishly, and allegedly due to ignorance temporarily, protect.
This theme is a recurring theme throughout history and, therefore, such a loaded sound-bite by a respected, well-known and successful statesman a handy argumentation device; whereas to remind the audience of the perils of poorly reasoned trades, to appeal to solidarity with others despite you yourself not being affected by circumstances yet, etc.
Bad trades exist but it's a matter of opinion whether any specific trade is bad or not
We're getting ourselves into an unproductive relativistic and epistemological conundrum I find most uninteresting. Yes, nothing is knowable, the universe is probabilistic in nature and nothing absolute as well as no true statement can be ever uttered. That path, however, is one I won't entertain further.
Good afternoon everybody!
Earlier this week I dropped Benjamin Franklin's Famous Quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" in a conversation with a friend.
After some days had passed, she wanted to know more about it and that motivated me to dust of and post some of my notes on the quote's origins online.
I figured some here would appreciate the added context and it'd be interesting hearing your thoughts about the alleged "contextomy" this particular excerpt has been the object of.
Thanks, this was an interesting read.
I am curious about the platform running your webpage. It looks really nice. How do you like it?
Which parts specifically? Feel free to pose your questions, I'll do my best to answer them. I've been meaning to write in detail about which components one is likely to require in the course of common and not-so-common blogging escapades, but it's been sitting in my drafts for ages.
If by platform you are referring to the hosting platform, I'm using GitLab Pages. I like GitLab Pages for many reasons but you can read more about it here; full disclosure I am a contributor to GitLab.
In case you're interested in tech or you don't shy away from getting a bit technical, I think using git, GitLab and a simplified CI/CD workflow is great for bloggers; I wouldn't be able to manage all bits and pieces to my liking without the aforementioned tools.
Thank you! It took me quite awhile to stabilize everything and get it to a point where I was happy both with the style as with the format and nature of the content I could publish, but nowadays I'm quite satisfied.
I think the idea of pushing commits to manage content is really interesting. I will have to look at the static site generation in more detail. Which generator are you using?
We used to run gitlab at a startup I was in years ago, and it was a great tool.
I can't recommend it enough.
I'm not using any particular generator; for the structure management I'm using Sphinx. However, I am very fond of Pelican, some people love Hugo and Jekyll is probably still the biggest out there.
Yes, I think in general more non-technical people should learn the ropes of git. That was somewhat the intention behind my git tutorial at the time, although more technical as non-technical people seem to have found value in it.
I have also tried to convince my non-technical friends and they mostly aren't interested. Although to be fair, if what you mostly do is make google docs (or word docs) all day, I can see where it would not see natural.
It's a good line, but it's vague, since what counts as an "essential" liberty is left to the imagination. It also seems rather judgmental about what people "deserve." Ideally, everyone would have liberty and safety, even those who aren't so wise and don't make good decisions.
It's a meme, basically. Don't let memes do your thinking for you. There's a saying for every occasion, often contradictory: "you must look before you leap" but "he who hesitates is lost."
The reason they deserve neither is quite apparent in the quote, that's what makes it brilliant:
They gave up their Liberty to get the temporary safety. They lost their safety, because it was temporary. They got what they asked for.
Thus, they get what they deserve.
It also helps that its well understood that liberty is an ill-defined blob like Tilde's moderation rules, for somewhat similiar reasons.
Agreed, but not so much in the context at hand: systematic land taxation.
This was the allegedly "non-essential" liberty being discussed and at stake. It was, of course, at odds with the "essential" liberty of "true" safety, as in by destining and having the means to work on a coherent response to threats.
That does make sense, and cases need to argue which liberty is more important in that context.
I'd agree that security of ones community does trump not having ones (ill-gotten) assets taxed.
I think of it as sort of like the midwit meme which is often used to assert that some idea that sounds dumb is also what an intelligent person would say, and the complications a "midwit" would add aren't actually all that essential if you know more. Sure, some ideas are like that, but what about this one? Does it really fit?
Similarly, the "temporary safety" and the "essential liberty" need to be filled in based on context, and then you can decide whether the "essential liberty" is actually all that essential and whether the "little temporary safety" is actually less important and temporary. You can't tell from the quote whether it's being used in a way that makes sense. It's just asserting it to be true in a clever way.
That's because the quote is just another idiom, as most things are when removed fully from context.
Memes are just idioms with pictures.
You touch upon many points but I'll address those are believe are your two main ones: the alleged vagueness of Franklin's statement as well as quotes as mere memes and placeholders for active thinking.
I disagree, it is as concrete as it can be, and as vague as the subject matter he deals with in his writing is. We must remind ourselves it's political, not mathematical, sources we're dealing with and, what's more, a controversial and highly important matter in which all involved parties had considerable stakes is being discussed. It is, then, natural that any particular utterance removed from its context and even if presented in context could be characterized as "vague".
Franklin's quote, however, is anything but, even more so since we have two instances of him using it, also multiple variants, and this can be said to present a framework of thinking and statesmanship which remains consistent over the decades, in many regards, and allows one to further reduce the alleged vagueness of said quote.
I'm sure you and I, as is anyone quoting an excerpt from an 18th century politician, are aware of the need to contextualize any such quote to modernity in order to, if at all, make it relevant and useful. In the context it was uttered, it was non-vague as he and his peers went on and on trying to explain how their propositions were reasonable.
The liberty of which Franklin speaks of in 1755 is very clear: the ability to defend oneself with aid only insofar ones own independence isn't hindered as desired by the freemen of Pennsylvania.
The liberty of which Franklin speaks of in 1775 is very clear: the liberty not to be taxed based on land possessed.
In modernity the context is provided in the article, opposing surveillance, supporting small-government and no systematic taxation.
Yes, I am aware the interpretation above was only necessary because of the vagueness of the statements being discussed, but this would apply to any non-mathematical subject we set ourselves to discuss.
It seems you assume being judgmental is necessarily a bad thing, and I disagree with that stance. I am, as you are, judgmental of an incredibly high number of things. For one, you seem to be judgmental of being judgmental. In the interest of constructive discourse, if what you mean is that Franklin is judgmental for no reason, than I wholeheartedly disagree.
Franklin is not being judgmental towards the unsuspecting people who "who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety" just because. He points out, in the context provided but also on numerous occasions and in several writings, that a liberties require the construction, furtherance and preservation of a system which protects those very same liberties. In the context of the quote Franklin is being extremely judgmental, and rightly so, of individual who, knowingly or not, wish to enjoy, by choice or happenstance, the liberties afforded by the system to them but refuse to make the necessary sacrifices for its construction, furtherance and preservation.
This seems, enjoyable puns, very judgmental. Everything is a meme, every word you write use, every thought you and I probably have is a meme or composed mostly of interconnected memes; and let's not get started on culture. So, what's wrong about memes? Furthermore, science is 90% quoting each other, 9% thinking and 1% writing interesting new-ish thoughts.
Having made that tongue-in-cheek remark, quotes, at least to me, are anything but placeholders for thinking and I disagree anyone should see them that way. You see, I, but I'm sure may others do so, went to great lengths to understand what was meant and did, in the process, probably even more thinking that I would have done in case I hadn't used the quote or incorporated it into the way I see the world.
A final point about my perspective on quotes I'd like to share is the following: it is awfully inefficient and taxing to go about discussing any particular topic with others while having to reference, cross-check and re-examine the full context, history and pedigree of any argument. Quotes are, if used properly, honestly and respectfully, a great way to encapsulate an argument and it's zeitgeist for the sake of conversation. It shows, generally and if not parroted about without explanation or ability to delve deeper, that the user is informed and able to understand the micro or macro aspects of the arguments out of the context and reach some level of abstraction, which the other interlocutor will hopefully agree with.
Certainly, but there's not a frame of thinking for every occasion and that's where you should, in my opinion, seek consistency. Assuming any party of the conversation isn't engaging in a marvelous display of mental gymnastics.
This is always right.
This is always wrong.
Consistency in frame of thinking and differentiated usage of properly contextualized excerpts; isn't language great?
Yes, I'm being judgemental, but in a different way. I'm saying some slogans sound more meaningful than they really are, and this is one of them.
The phase is about being judgemental about a hypothetical someone who made a bad trade, but presumably they thought it was a reasonable trade and they got snookered. This is blaming some hypothetical victim.
People who make bad trades get what they deserve? This is a just-world fallacy. Injustice happens everywhere, often randomly. Sometimes people benefit from risky trades because they got lucky, or suffer after making what seemed like a good trade at the time, but then something else happened.
We can get something closer to justice when people do something about it. Sometimes justice is about going to court to reverse bad trades that were fraudulent or somehow illegitimate. But usually this doesn't happen. The capacity of the justice system is limited.
And since the context was a debate about policy, this is also collective blame. When a legislature makes a bad deal, the people get what they deserve? What is that?
The victim isn't really the point, though. It's just saying it's a bad trade, in flowery language.
If using this phrase reminded us of some specific bad trade, it would be reasoning by analogy. I guess it's saying that some new policy dispute is sort of like the American Revolution, somehow? But that's too vague to be of much use. The context has been lost from most people's memories, turning it into an empty catch-phrase. Learning the history is interesting but it doesn't really help.
Bad trades exist but it's a matter of opinion whether any specific trade is bad or not. Adding some flowery language doesn't really make the case for it, and the fact that Franklin said it doesn't really add anything.
You are refusing to acknowledge the agency of these so-called victims, which they aren't and even if they were it would be irrelevant to the gist of the slogan. As mentioned above, these individuals chose to leverage their agency in order to weasel out of sacrifices required by the system they themselves profit from and enjoy, by choice or happenstance, which in turn protects said benefits and the liberties they choose to selfishly, and allegedly due to ignorance temporarily, protect.
This theme is a recurring theme throughout history and, therefore, such a loaded sound-bite by a respected, well-known and successful statesman a handy argumentation device; whereas to remind the audience of the perils of poorly reasoned trades, to appeal to solidarity with others despite you yourself not being affected by circumstances yet, etc.
We're getting ourselves into an unproductive relativistic and epistemological conundrum I find most uninteresting. Yes, nothing is knowable, the universe is probabilistic in nature and nothing absolute as well as no true statement can be ever uttered. That path, however, is one I won't entertain further.