From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:37:50 +0800
To: ptrei@ACM.ORG
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberserap
Message-ID: <m0uDOuV-000924C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 06:31 PM 4/27/96 -0700, CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:
>Peter Trei wrote about my signature:
>>
>>It's this last sig-quote that bothers me. It's worth noting that, unlike
>>the other two, it has no attribution. It looks like an inversion of
>>Benjamin Franklin's:
>>
>>" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
>>  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>>         - Historical Review of Pennsylvania
>
>It is an inversion of that quotation and it does indeed sum up our focus.
>It has no name on it because I switched it around to make a motto for our
>work.  Not that I disagree with Franklin though.  The comment is true both
>ways around.

I find that to be a disgusting opinion.  Quite to the contrary, I think that 
whenever it _appears_ that giving up "a little liberty" would provide more 
security, there are other ways of providing that same security that don't 
require any loss of liberty.

For just one example, it is well known that the "war on drugs" actually 
causes a great deal of street crime.  But a person who doesn't see this, or 
doesn't want to admit this might see that crime and conclude that some loss 
of liberty (like, for instance, giving the police the authority to stop and 
frisk all passers-by whenever they want) would improve safety.  What he 
doesn't admit is that by legalizing drugs nearly all of that crime would 
disappear, vastly improving safety.

So it's a false trade-off, in both directions.  Authoritarians may disagree.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com