Re:Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine...
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @01:47AM
(#22932354)
> By putting the quote into the context of the founding fathers the precise meaning is to imbue it with the idea that a sort of anti-governmental stance is Ur-American
A sort of anti-governmental stance is Ur-American. They didn't fight a revolution because they were satisfied to live under the rule of a far away unaccountable government. The implication being ascribed isn't out of character.
Franklin also said things like this:
> Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.
Which isn't as pithy but was treasonously anti-government in that era.
More to the point, he said the one about liberty and temporary safety more than once, so focusing on one instance as if that context is the only one is just as misleading. Here's a different one:
> As to the other two Acts, The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
So here's Franklin arguing that they must go to war sooner than give up their liberty to Parliament in peace, i.e. context in accordance with the usage for which it's typically quoted.
A sort of anti-governmental stance is Ur-American. They didn't fight a revolution because they were satisfied to live under the rule of a far away unaccountable government. The implication being ascribed isn't out of character.
Franklin also said things like this:
> Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.
Which isn't as pithy but was treasonously anti-government in that era.
More to the point, he said the one about liberty and temporary safety more than once, so focusing on one instance as if that context is the only one is just as misleading. Here's a different one:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-21-02-02...
Where we see this:
> As to the other two Acts, The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
So here's Franklin arguing that they must go to war sooner than give up their liberty to Parliament in peace, i.e. context in accordance with the usage for which it's typically quoted.