What about Ben Franklin? (was Re: [PLUG-TALK] O.J. and guns)

[glen e. p. ropella]

=><=><= "athlonrob" == AthlonRob  <AthlonRob at axpr.net> writes:

athlonrob> If not safe, one can never be free.

I have nothing useful to add to this thread... But, I wanted to pick
on Rob for this aphorism, here.  Isn't it exactly the opposite?

   Safe <---> Free 

are opposite ends of a spectrum.  The only way to be truly free is to
be in constant peril and the only way to be truly safe is to be...
well, dead, which, unless you believe in the after-life, is the
ultimate in safety.

I suppose one could pull out the old "positive" versus "negative"
freedoms mullarky.  But, the negative freedoms are silly in my opinion
and aren't proper freedoms at all.  "I am free from having to fight
for my dinner!" ... nonsense. [grin]

Freedom, in my not-so-humble opinion is about what actions one is able
to take, not what forces or actions are absent from the environment.
Only a physicist would come up with "freedom" in the sense of
"unconstrained".

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said "Those who would trade freedom for
safety deserve neither"?  Of course, he spent too much time smoking
pot to ever be taken very seriously.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com