Slashdot Mirror

"Those who would sacrifice freedoms to gain temporary security deserve neither"

Misquote.

Please quote the entire context where Franklin was talking about those who sacrifice their freedom to bear arms pretty much deserve to be killed in a conflict:

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.

So, if you find yourself being attacked by "skulking Murderers" and and give you your "essential freedom" to defend yourself by refusing to arms and you or your family gets killed, "[you] ought only blame [yourself]."

Not what you thought, now is it?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Cited

first off, i never said IV heroin use was the same as ingesting opium orally. however, since you've brought it up, it should be noted that whether you smoke, insufflate, or ingest orally, the pharmacological mechanism of an opioid is the same. certain opiates like morphine and diacetylmorphine (heroin) are not suited to oral ingestion as they have very low oral bioavailability (somewhere around 10%, i think), but others like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and codeine do have high oral bioavailability.

really, aside from the initial rush (which lasts for 2-3 minutes max), injecting morphine/heroin/oxycodone/fentanyl feels exactly the same as if you ate it. however, it's more economical to inject morphine and heroin. and in my personal experience, most of the pill poppers who think that they're being smart by avoiding needles but have $200/day habits are not any better off than the heroin addicts with $200/day habits. of course, with IV use there are certain hygienic precautions you need to take. re-using needles and sharing needles are always bad. but aside from that, a lot of doctors who are closet IV morphine addicts are no worse off than pill poppers.

in regards to Benjamin Franklin, i wasn't being disingenuous, but thanks for the accusation anyway. if you look up Poor Richard's Almanac (here's a digital copy) you'll find lots of references to laudanum (opium & alcohol tincture), including as an ingredient to all sorts of home-made remedies as well as, interestingly enough, a bill or invoice sent to the Franklin estate including charges for "opium pills" and laudanum--and quite a lot of it. so perhaps he did use it recreationally or perhaps he didn't. but it's clear that Franklin was a regular user of opium at least as early as 1769 (the date of that bill), and was a proponent of opium use.

and if you want more sources that support Benjamin Franklin being a regular opium user:

"Many of our country's founding fathers used opium, including Benjamin Franklin, an opium addict most of his life, according to historians. In the 1800s, opium was the main ingredient in many of the most widely used elixirs and patent medicines.
"

"Laudanum, originally in the form of an opium pill and later a liquid combination of opium and alcohol, was developed by Paracelsus, a Swiss chemist, in the sixteenth century. In colonial America, the term laudanum was used for a number of preparations that combined opium with ingredients such as wine, henbane, bone of the heart of a stag, cinnamon, frog's sperm, and orange or lemon juice. The alcoholic preparation of opium that people drank was the most popular and was regularly used by such prominent Americans as Benjamin Franklin."

It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.

You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".

And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.

Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.

You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.

Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.

See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here. Also 'colourable' in this document. 'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also here ('honor') and here ('honour').

'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'. In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.

My apologies for the mis-use of the term 'sir'.

It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.

You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".

And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.

Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.

You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.

Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.

See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here. Also 'colourable' in this document. 'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also here ('honor') and here ('honour').

'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'. In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.

My apologies for the mis-use of the term 'sir'.

I have to differ on your interpretation of Franklin's message.

First, here is the whole thing link

There is no mention of Quakers in there. This is about disputes between the Penn. Assembly and the Royal Governor. It seems that the Governor was rejecting bills from the Assembly in an arbitrary manner, and the gist of it seems that the Governor was trying to get more control, and refusing any bill funding a defence against the indians on the frontier if he didn't get it. The 'essential liberties' are those the Governor wants to take away, and the 'safety' would have come from the extra war funding.

On the other hand, this looks like it was an established quote even then, either one he came up with earlier, or someone else's statement that he was using. One that other people would recognise.

T

I'll bet you don't know what specific "essential liberty" Franklin was referring to, do you?

That quote is Ben Franklin saying Quakers in Pennsylvania who "g[a]ve up [their] essential liberty" of BEARING ARMS paid for by the government against Indian and French raids during the French and Indian Wars (known in Europe, IIRC, as the "Seven Year War") deserved what they got: killed.

Your oh-so-fucking-precious quote is a small part of a diatribe against blind, stupid pacifism: those that give up their essential liberty of armed self-defense deserve what they get. You'd know that if you bothered to read the whole damn letter.

Quit taking it out of context.