3 Answers

  1. The question, in fact, is not easy. On the one hand, we must understand that living in society, we constantly sacrifice freedom for the sake of security, as Hobbes wrote to some extent. Here's an example: when a driver gets behind the wheel, they voluntarily sacrifice the freedom to drive where they want and how they want (for example, the freedom to drive at a speed of 150 km / h in the city) and follow traffic rules for the sake of road safety. Will we consider it wrong? Hardly.

    Nevertheless, I believe that Franklin pointed out an important problem in the relations between the state and society: systematic sacrifice of freedom for the sake of some potential benefits, including “stability”, “national security” and so on, usually does not lead society to anything good. As a rule, this is how various forms of totalitarian regimes are built, in which, in the end, there is neither stability, security, nor freedom.

    It turns out that freedom and security are in a rather complicated relationship. On the one hand, it is not necessary to sacrifice freedom in search of security and confidence in the future, on the other hand, a normal community of people requires, first of all, self-restriction of their freedom.

    Therefore, I would say that the above quote makes sense if it is understood in such a way that, first of all, under no circumstances should people agree to sacrifice their (or others') fundamental rights, such as the right to life, freedom of speech, inviolability of the home, secrecy of correspondence, and so on.

  2. The question is extremely simple. No, this expression is not fair. Because it is devoid of any connection with reality, like most of the “loud” words of great people in general.

    It is rather a kind of poetry that is written not as a conclusion, but as something designed to inspire and support people.

    Does it sound pretty? Sure. Categorically, implacably and defiantly? Sure. That's what we were counting on. Can it be considered a reality? Not yet. �

    Who sacrifices freedom? Everyone, to one degree or another, this is the reality. So who is this phrase for? Not for anyone. � �

    This is a motivational message. It can be considered as a very conditional moral guideline, and even then, with a big stretch, but definitely not as a real goal.

  3. By sacrificing our freedom, we become more dependent on third parties and more factors, and this is a direct threat to our security.

    I think he meant that without freedom, there is no security.

Leave a Reply