Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that, in your opinion, makes sense to counter Adam Smith's take on the subject?
Yes, in honesty the quote is more related to topics as these than it is in reference to direct "safety" it is often used (concerning threat to health). That is, the purpose of "safety" is in actual reference to "personal responsibility", rather the "risk and uncertainty" to which is associated with it.
Smith is describing the need to reduce liberty in order to reduce the risk of such an occurrence, essentially removing the personal responsibility of an individual in an attempt to provide "safety".
What Franklin is saying, as well as Patrick Henry went into detail about (liberty or death speech) is that these are the risks of freedom. It comes with responsibility, risk, and uncertainty, that some may attempt to violate liberties as Smith warns and reasons as justifiable in infringement, but as Franklin and Henry pointed out to remove these liberties for the sake of avoiding the possibility of such is a disrespect to the liberty itself and those who would give them up, do not deserve liberty and the safety to which they seek. You see, in their pursuit to keep people safe from violations of liberty, they violate liberty themselves, hence the reason they deserve neither themselves as they simply do not respect them in the first place.
Yes, in honesty the quote is more related to topics as these than it is in reference to direct "safety" it is often used (concerning threat to health). That is, the purpose of "safety" is in actual reference to "personal responsibility", rather the "risk and uncertainty" to which is associated with it.
Safety is more than about "health". It is about security of ANY kind.
Quote:
Smith is describing the need to reduce liberty in order to reduce the risk of such an occurrence, essentially removing the personal responsibility of an individual in an attempt to provide "safety".
Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, is reconciling the realities with ideologies. Clearly, he was not the ideologue that free marketeers are. He was being a realist, and concerned about securing the freedoms of consumers, the people, as well. Drawing a line between good and bad for a society is essential in the real world. Whereas the push for liberty for one while ignoring the realities for the rest is insanity.
EinsteinsGhots-- please cease Googling Adam Smith. Its obvious.
I've started to use Bing lately. But as to the inconveniences such quotes cause you, perhaps you should limit self to likes of Conservapedia and its take on google.
Safety is more than about "health". It is about security of ANY kind.
I was speaking of its direct use as Franklin intended within the debates to which it was referencing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, is reconciling the realities with ideologies. Clearly, he was not the ideologue that free marketeers are. He was being a realist, and concerned about securing the freedoms of consumers, the people, as well. Drawing a line between good and bad for a society is essential in the real world. Whereas the push for liberty for one while ignoring the realities for the rest is insanity.
And this is the relevance of my quote. Smith while I do agree with some aspects of his evaluation, I disagree on others. More specifically, I disagree with the position that liberty should be infringed for the sake of security, it is not realistic in argument, it is methodological in purpose. It serves only the self interest of those who wish not to be responsible in their freedom. Liberty can not be served by restricting it for the sake of itself.
The quote fits quite appropriately to this issue:
Quote:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I was speaking of its direct use as Franklin intended within the debates to which it was referencing.
And this is the relevance of my quote. Smith while I do agree with some aspects of his evaluation, I disagree on others. More specifically, I disagree with the position that liberty should be infringed for the sake of security, it is not realistic in argument, it is methodological in purpose. It serves only the self interest of those who wish not to be responsible in their freedom. Liberty can not be served by restricting it for the sake of itself.
The quote fits quite appropriately to this issue:
Benjamin Franklin
No, the Franklin's quote does not fit anywhere, actually. For that matter, even living within the society takes away liberties that a person may have otherwise. But the person chooses to give up some of those liberties to benefit from more that wouldn't be available outside of the society.
Adam Smith is speaking, not as an ideologue, but as a realist. That there is a need to ensure that a few don't cause harm to the many. In fact, THAT was one of the fundamental principles in the concept of government for the USA.
No, the Franklin's quote does not fit anywhere, actually.
True, not directly, but it is believed to be very likely associated to such as Franklin also stated similar proverb "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." (Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738)
Concerning his mentions, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry's discussion on the topic, the meaning falls within such a reasonable explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
For that matter, even living within the society takes away liberties that a person may have otherwise.
How do you figure that? There is no liberties taken away while living in society. Unless.... you liberally interpret liberty to also mean "anarchy" which is completely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
But the person chooses to give up some of those liberties to benefit from more that wouldn't be available outside of the society.
This is counter to the many debates, discussions and writings of the founders. This is more often a position seen in "ism" based ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Adam Smith is speaking, not as an ideologue, but as a realist. That there is a need to ensure that a few don't cause harm to the many. In fact, THAT was one of the fundamental principles in the concept of government for the USA.
One doesn't not insure liberty by the sake of removing it. It is an absurd contradictory position. The aspect of such a stance is simply to "reduce" the "risk" of an infringement and by doing so, accuses all of such action and then strips them of their liberty in order to "save them from themselves". Again, this is an argument, not of reality, but of one who sees liberty as less important within society. A position that again, is not of the ideal of liberty, but that of the many forms of dictation of systems that strive to obtain power over it.
It is a slippery argument that continues to be applied within society, each step limiting more and more freedoms under the guise that it is protecting peoples freedoms. It is a use car salesman pitch, nothing more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
