His point is still essentially the same, even if the roles have reversed a bit. Replace Penn family with today's government, and the governor with a citizen about to give up his rights. The governor was going to give up the people's right to tax the Penn family in exchange for a one time payment. The governor would be making a short term sacrifice to help those dying on the frontier at the long term expense of the people. That is more or less how most people use the quote today.

That being said, I don't think most would consider driving 120 mph while snorting coke an essential liberty. The OP makes a much more reasonable point which you refuse to address.

This particular quote includes two adjectives which I'm not seeing on all occasions it is brought up: "essential Liberty" and "temporary Safety". Operating a vehicle under influence and in an unsafe manner does not fall under "essential" in my view.

The phrase says "essential liberty" not "a little Liberty".

I mean, "essential" really is in the eye of the beholder, which makes the whole point moot, especially as this quote is often brought up in cases where the "essential-ness" of what is being curtailed is highly debatable.

This isn't an academic argument, either. Just look at the gun debate in the US. Many argue that any curtailment of the right to bear arms, from a pistol to a bazooka, is an infringement of essential liberty. Many others strongly disagree that the right of individuals to own high-powered firearms is an essential liberty.

Of course it's in the eye of the beholder. The quote is just one man's subjective opinion. It's a pretty way of stating one person's opinion as to the relative importance of essential liberty and safety which many people agree with.

It's a matter for debate what liberties are essential and different people believe different things.

Legitimacy of any government, monopoly on voice by any government is defended on such grounds: different varieties of social contract theorists. As one of the replies suggest, you are picking on "little", whereas the parent poster mentions "essential".

Even “essential” liberties were infringed on from the very beginning, and maintained until now. Defamation and free speech being a common example.

>cruise down the highway at 120 MPH

Your example is not one of "liberty", at most can be one of "licence", and surely not of "essential liberty".

There's the rub. What is a "license", what is a "liberty", and what is an "essential liberty". People disagree on this.

(Sorry for the delay, UncleMeat)

While debatability is normal, that in this context of liberty the point of discrimination is "how and how much one's action affects others" - akin to the dialectic between "freedom to vs freedom from" - should be a trivial point, and at the same time is evidently something not clear in many.

Categorizing "speedracing under an influence" is not a hard exercise.

Edit: I am also seeing - and in the past 18 months the evidence has boomed -, a widespread inability towards the judgement of "why this policy", both in the affected public and the issuing power, including monstrous faults deviating from straight reasoning and display of shallow arguing (not even any more explainable by electorate positioning). I have seen a boost in lack of judgement. This is very ghastly - it is a return to the famed quality/quantity of discrimination in times of witch-hunting.