Franklin said "essential liberty" and "little temporary safety." The key terms are essential, little and temporary.

People twist this quote around far too much. What he means is for example is that would you lose all your rights to privacy & not being illegally searched just to keep you safe from the terrorists? (which is a very low possibility)

@philliesphan334

9 жыл бұрын

nomar manuel he wasn't saying that there shouldn't be any form of security. He was saying security that strips us from all of our basic liberties for security that doesn't work shouldn't have neither

@philliesphan334

9 жыл бұрын

***** what that I don't want this once great free country into a prison state.

@pneulancer

9 жыл бұрын

***** Completely agree with you. The examples he cites are non-sequiturs. Earlier in his career I thought of Maher as more of a libertarian but clearly he's not.

@philliesphan334

9 жыл бұрын

mikey mize I love Bill Maher but he's a liberal. Not saying that's a bad thing I'm liberal leaning myself just stating a fact.

@pneulancer

9 жыл бұрын

***** The funny thing is, I like Bill as well; I thinks he's very entertaining and funny. I'm pretty much a Libertarian but always enjoy people that cut through the BS like Maher; even if I don't always agree with his perspective.

I love Bill Maher. Always spot on.

Franklin was hardly "absolutist" there, Bill. Not when he put TWO modifiers in the quote: "Essential" liberty and "a little" temporary safety. There's a lot of room for debate between those expressions.

@ImSoOvertImCovert

8 жыл бұрын

+RHaj Mand I thought the exact same thing. Bill seemingly deliberately goes from quoting Franklin to "absolutist" and "not trading ANY liberty for safety" Franklin clearly wasn't advocating anarchism there.

@RHajmand

7 жыл бұрын

I don't know you you're referring to by "we," Heisenberg, when you speak of a lack of nuance. The Bill of Rights is written in absolutist terms ("shall not be violated" "shall not infringe"...), but in 200 years of opinions, the Supreme Court has consistently acknowledged a multitude of exceptions to every right enumerated in the Constitution. Whenever the government can demonstrate a "compelling state interest." Nuance all over the place.

@scarpfish

3 жыл бұрын

We all have differing views on what liberties are "essential" and how much security is "a little". You can debate such to the ends of the earth with no resolution.

Safety over Liberty. Yes, Bill, Colonoscopies are Important!

I'm not sure Bill Franklin's quote was used here in its correct context or use. I think anyone who equates "liberty" with the ability to not pay taxes is simply foolish. Plus, it was Benjamin Franklin himself who said that: "The only two things certain in life are death and taxes." Maher probably should have researched the context of that quote a little bit more before he used it for an inappropriate use.

@NovaHessia

10 жыл бұрын

I think you misunderstood him. He did say paying taxes is *giving up* freedom - giving up freedom to get the security provided by the military, the police and other state services. His argument was we all give up some liberty for safety, on a daily base, so the quote taken to its absolute end is silly. However, yeah, Maher's terrorism scare mongering is even more silly. And hypocritical, considering how he (rightly) blasted the Bush government for *just that*. Mind, on the other side are all the conservatives who excused all the shit Bush did and now decry the watered down versions of the same Obama does as tyranny. Those are even worse hypocrites.

@MrGOTAMA420

10 жыл бұрын

i like mr mahr but i do not think hes right here

@15772397

10 жыл бұрын

NovaHessia Other statements about Maher aside, he is incorrectly using this quote. Specifically, Franklin's quote states "Essential liberties", its pretty clearly stated that the founding fathers regarded essential liberties to be related to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Giving up a portion of your money for taxes which help you even indirectly, not really losing essential liberty there. Giving up all of your money to taxes, or having someone walk by and say, hey profitable business you got there. Give it to me! That is a loss of essential liberty. He was talking about the people arguing that we should continue on under King George III because it would be dangerous to try to create our own country. The issues then were slightly more serious than reading someones email...

@Isaakmedextraa

10 жыл бұрын

Ohaern . True, but I think he is more objecting to how Palin and her like are using the quote rather than to the quote itself in its original context.

@drumdad1242

9 жыл бұрын

Whats that called when your forced to pay for protection?

Finally someone says it like it is. Go Bill

there are no draconian penalties for abuses of Government. Not a single person has been accountable for a single violation of things like the nsa, illegal wiretaps etc.

Agree. He's usually pretty spot on, but this time he's off the mark.

The quote itself is valid...... but neither Maher nor Palin seem to understand the adjectives used.... If you sacrifice an ESSENTIAL freedom for a LITTLE TEMPORARY safety, you deserve neither. Example: Regulating banks (not an ESSENTIAL FREEDOM) to prevent them from ruining families (NOT A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY) is not critizised with this quote. The same goes for gun regulation, since yes, people think it is an essential freedom, but its not done for a little temporary safety, but for a major and permanent one: to prevent deadly crimes and accidents for millions of people. So how about you learn to read properly.....

Well said, Bill.

I think the key word in that quote was "essential". It opens the quote up to some interpretation. Do you sacrifice an "essential liberty" when you stop at a red light, or submit to a security scan at the airport?

@BloodofPatriots

10 жыл бұрын

Bill isn't smart enough to make the distinction.

@kdemetter

10 жыл бұрын

Liberty/freedom stops where it impedes on another persons freedom. You 'right to cross the road whenever you feel like it' conflicts with another persons 'right to cross the road whenever they feel like it' . Red lights are a way to ensure that everyone has that freedom. Some examples of "giving up essential freedom to purchase a little temporary safety": - Locking people up without a trial, in a desperate attempt to prevent terrorism. - Writers censoring themselves out of fear of violence - etc...

@NothingIsKnown00

7 жыл бұрын

Here, Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 proves why the short format communication encouraged by Twitter/FB/KZread is inadequate to dig into the complex issues of our time.

@BloodofPatriots

7 жыл бұрын

Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2

If they foresaw Ted Nugent, they'd have ran screaming into the night.

I didn't even know they made a second one. I'm definitely watching that now.

The net we have now could have caught them. We let him go after questioning and we were told by Russia to keep an eye on him.

Bill keeps jumping those sharks.

The quote refers specifically to essential liberties Bill. It's still a very relevant quote, despite the fact that shit-for-brains tweeted it!

The "bear" part. Both sides are guilty of trying to remove the 2nd amendment from the context and discard the SPIRIT of the law, what was the INTENTION of this Amendment?

ESSENTIAL freedoms. so the quote is not to blame is what people make of it.

and when they wrote the First Amendment, they were not thinking of Bill Maher

@alexturlais8558

7 жыл бұрын

Cody Holcomb and they weren't thinking of Germs when they wrote the declaration of independence.

Liberty does NOT mean to do what you want to do. You are NOT giving up your liberty by stopping at a red light, anymore than you are giving up your liberty when you do not kill someone you want to. You are NOT free to infringe on someone else's freedom.

1st, 4th and 5th Amendments would be essential liberties in this context. If you give up free speech and due process you have a police state, not a free republic.

When is HBO going to dump this guy? We can only hope?

:55 to 'equip an army' sounds pretty essential to me.

You betrayed me for career safety. You said yes.

Well it obviously doesn't include the right to disobey traffic laws on government property (roads are almost entirely government built or run).

im not american but im just catching up a bit history here, might as well answer questions if i decide to become a citizen, dont get me wrong personel liberty, individuality, smaller govertment is what i support but your liberty means nothing if you are DEAD

@cobracurse

9 жыл бұрын

lol............You are one of the few people who actually have any common sense on the internet. If you go up to a dictator and say to him/her, "Give me Liberty or give me Death!!!", chances are that that dictator will give you the latter. You would be dead, and the dictator will continue to stay in power.

(cont) the FISA law. So what is the constructive meeting place--regardless of who is president? I would suggest a 6 point test: 1) Is it Constitutional (as determined by SCOTUS, not arm-chair jurists)? 2) Is it legal? 3) Is their judicial review? 4) Is their legal oversight comparable to other covert programs? 5) Is it necessary? 6) Is it effective? If the answer to all these questions is Yes, then I'm okay with it, regardless of who is president, although reluctantly. Thanks for your reply.

Suitcase nukes, in this context, was used to explain why increased security was necessary not to address the 2nd amendment issues. There is an issue that we are encountering now that we didn't 100 years ago and that is an extreme overcrowding. Overcrowded cities have a close relationship with violence because of man's territorial nature. The 2nd amendment is seeing a huge rural vs. urban divide because guns are more dangerous in cities than in the outskirts but they travel easily.

I'm planning on getting one... But I'm not acting like we don't need a police force

"Essential" liberty.

The "social contract" is the essential principle of a constitutional government. It is the "agreement" between the people and the government that the people will give up some of their individual power to the government so that the government can use that power to protect the people's rights. No one signed any document; they ratified it, the Constitution, in 1789. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should live somewhere else.

usually I think highly of Bill Maher.In this case I'll go with Ben F.

My writing is fine, I use the occasional capitalisation for lack of italics. It's completely legible. The problem is at your end, learn to read and then you will be able to understand simple explanations.

How does one define essential? That's his point.

i still like my gun bill.. but i can agree with you more then.. republicans.

and some of those essential liberties are being used by people who don't have the mortal fortitude to wield them.

Haha true, I used the word 'entertaining' on purpose. Can't go wrong with Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen and a bunch of hot girls blowing shit up.

THEY COULDN'T SEE TED NUGENT!

Lets not forget the phrase "TEMPORARY" security. Institutionalized security does not fall under that provision.

When we had hot wars and a cold war, we had plenty of surveillance against the enemy. Now the enemy is fanatics among us. I think there are six basic questions we should ask about the NSA spying program: 1) Is it constitutional (as determined by SCOTUS, not all you armchair jurists); 2) Is it legal; 3) Is there judicial review; 4) and legislative review? 5) Is it necessary; 6) Is it effective? If the answer to all of them is yes, I think we should live with it, unfortunate though that may be.

I've seen people assume that government monitoring is acceptable since "they're not doing anything wrong" or because they say they have nothing to hide. What they don't understand is that - You don't define what's wrong and right. The NSA does.

Yeah founding fathers what do they know...

I'm too poor to pay taxes. I stop at a red light because I do not want to die. I probably would stop there if there were no law saying I had to because I value my life and safety.

maher was against the overreaction in boston but for spying.

Essential liberty Bill, not liberty...

So you want to give the government more access to your personal information? What exactly does tightening the net mean?

uuh, arms by definition is the root word for anything that can be described as a weapon, that does extend to poisons and explosives.

Would really love for you to point to the part where that is explained.

The question for me at least is not about giving up liberty or security. But giving up individual liberty or security which are two different things. People shouldn't have the liberty to hurt innocent people like bringing weapons or bombs on a plane or running red lights. But they should have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives. Not for other people and shouldn't have to give up either individual liberty or security to have either.

No-one in that picture is J. Edgar Hoover.

That's the thing, once you decide to give away some of your liberty, more will follow. And then who decides how much more will be taken away? Bill Maher's complacency about giving up some of his liberties is mind-boggling. Also, i'm pretty sure people knew and talked about the NSA before Snowden; he just dumbed it down for the rest of Americans, and once his face was in every magazine, they took notice.

@alexturlais8558

7 жыл бұрын

HECTOR2006ELPASO "once you give away some of your liberty more will follow" I don't know what country you're in, but you've already given up some liberty. so unless you wanna move to the tiny area between Egypt and Sudan that no-one wants, then don't say stupid things like that. we all have to give up some liberty. it's not turning us into North Korea.

@alexturlais8558

7 жыл бұрын

HECTOR2006ELPASO "once you give away some of your liberty more will follow" I don't know what country you're in, but you've already given up some liberty. so unless you wanna move to the tiny area between Egypt and Sudan that no-one wants, then don't say stupid things like that. we all have to give up some liberty. it's not turning us into North Korea.

@HECTOR2006ELPASO

7 жыл бұрын

You seem too complacent about giving up your freedom or liberty...like it doesn't matter or it's not a big deal. You should be more concerned. I don't think you are really informed on the subject. Read a little first...then we'll talk.

@alexturlais8558

7 жыл бұрын

HECTOR2006ELPASO I'm not complacent, I just realise that you can't have 100% liberty. that would be ridiculous.

It's a question for you not for me!

Anything? Outside of debates over security--what?

I sometimes watch things I hate. I guess I think it is entertaining.

Bill is totally misinterpreting the quote, either that or he can't read because "essential liberties" does not mean "the freedom of not stopping at a red light", but more like the freedom of speech/expression, freedom of press, the right not to be searched without a justifiable reason. Nobody is refuting that you should be able to search emails or record telephone conversations, but it should be justified and he admitted himself that unjustified searches and recordings are wrong. But that is basically what Franklin means, so it must be that Maher can't read because he totally misses that Frankling actually is on his side concerning this. The whole NSA spygate was about that the NSA recorded anything, so they could search the data after they stored it for months and years. They basically did what Franklin's quote is concerned about, they traded liberty for safety and are deserving of neither. Most of the time I like Bill Maher, but there are sometimes issues he either doesn't get or he is so tucked in in his own ideology that he misinterprets them.

When viewed from the point of view of the state, libertarianism is indeed anarchy.The more control the state has over the lives of the people the more order and control there is. By the same token, the more liberty the people have, the less ordered society becomes. 'Anarchy' is only good if it relates to increased social complexity, not if it means the only rule of law means the law of the jungle.

Amazing Nearly Every Word Started With A Capital.....

YAAAAS JOHN LOCKE IS DAT BOY

Bill is wrong here... Ben Franklin said that in a time when personal freedom was paramount. Bill and the rest of us take freedom for granted these days for the most part. I'll bet that if Bill was jailed for anti government views on his show and his personal properties were siezed...he'd be more passionate about personal liberty.

@SallinKari

8 жыл бұрын

+Chris Thompson Yes, there is a reason Ben Franklin mentioned 'essential' liberties. To be more accurate, this would refer to something like the patriot act.

Like it or not you give government an inch they take a mile or 2

Bill I´m sorry but the quote from Franklin doesn´t have to do with liberty or liberties themselves, but about the principle from which we regard our liberty something sacred, like being able to disclose to the public the wrong doings of our government, etc.. Of course, we under a social contract must abide to certain constrains towards our individual liberties, but these constrains themselves are made so that we can all enjoy from more basic liberties than what was constrained in the first place

Once again, that is not an argument.

Benjamin Franklin said "Essential" liberty - why the hell is that key word being ignored by both sides

I thought this was about gun control.

Sorry, Bill. You lost me on this one.

The top comments are silly. Can anyone define "essential" liberty before using it as some sort of loophole? Different people have different sets of essential liberties they value, and "essential" changes with time and technology. Constitution provides a guideline to what is essential, but they are not carved in stones, which is why Constitution can be changed. I am pretty sure the internet and WMD are both things beyond the founder's imaginations, among other things.

she even misqoted him

The suitcase nuke showed in the video was actually a bomb meant to be fired from a type of artillery piece. The actual suitcase nukes looked like actual metal suitcases. I remember seeing a picture of one years ago.

Well. This changes my perspective a bit, I guess. If the government has a really good reason to read the hot n' steamy emails I send to my girlfriend every day, they can knock themselves out. But they'd better fucking stay away if they don't.

" or, different example: if you buy something at a high price, you deserve being forjudged of either (price or good" "deserve " is a figurative phrase literally it would be like earned or reaped like in you reap what you sow would you agree with that?

Most Libertarians don't identify as anarchists or believe in anarchy. They think it might be a Utopian idea we should possibly strive for, but do realize that at this point in the human existence, it wouldn't be very productive. If everyone has individual Liberties. No one gets their freedom from another's expense. Libertarianism is simply the rejection of force on another person when used for aggression. I believe in getting the government as small as possible and chaining it there.

Common sense, not the Democrats strongest trait. Bill has it sometimes

Many of Franklin's sayings were just little entertaining antidotes that were known by others or just made up by him as they sounded cleaver. You can't take any of them absolute. Even raising an army in his day, required those who were conscripted to lose their freedom-- desertion was death by hanging. John Adams observed and wrote that Franklin didn't follow his antidotes.

@jmitterii2

10 жыл бұрын

mauricemoss89 Agree with you pretty much everything you said. And I did mean anecdotes LOL! Not antidote LOL!

In theory, what you are saying is mostly right but you are forgetting what it takes to learn about those specific targets and groups. You are saying, only focus on the bad guys. The only problem is, who are the bad guys?

Clearly.

Fuck. That looks better than the first.

Using the "atomic bomb in a suitcase" argument you can make a case for almost anything.

Most Libertarians don't identify as anarchists or believe in anarchy. They think it might be a Utopian idea we should possibly strive for, but do realize that at this point in the human existence, it wouldn't be very productive. If everyone has individual Liberties. No one gets their freedom from another's expense. Libertarianism is simply the rejection of force on another person when used for aggression. Sincerely, a Libertarian.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO AND POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS

Apparently Bill doesn't know what "essential" means.

Hah, the duality of man. I'm more of a 'Parent Trap' kinda guy.

Haha a real go getter

Apparently most people in the comments fell asleep mid video and then just started typing

Wrong logic here by Bill. Rules & laws make for an orderly society. What Ben is referring to is asking for all risks to be taken away. His conclusion is such a life is not worth living.

Even if we ignore philosophy and focus just on logic, banning guns has never made any American safer. BUT, for some reason it seemed to work alright in England, Australia, and New Zealand. So maybe America is just fuckin weird.

Social contract... That has a nice ring to it. Sounds way better then slavery.

@daliborbenes5025

9 жыл бұрын

Nobody forces you to be here, you can always go to the jungle.

@daliborbenes5025

9 жыл бұрын

And of course typical anarchist mistake - slavery =/= modified feudalism (oh yeah, the ruler pays the serfs - and serfs can become the ruler! yay!)

@JDeffenb

8 жыл бұрын

+drumdad124 I dont think you understand what the social contract

@TheKingOfChem

8 жыл бұрын

+supermarioowen The social contract is a theory put forth by John Locke and Rousseau that protect the people from the government. If you knew anything about 17th and 18th century enlightenment philosophy you might understand. It was classical liberalism

@daliborbenes5025

8 жыл бұрын

Why do people even care if its moral or not? It's maybe sad, but easy,: The government is simply the guy with most guns. Morality is something abstract, more like a market, a flowing river, always adjusting to current needs. If there was only one person on Earth, not harming other people would simply be nonsense. If we actually profit from slavery, than we would profit from "true freedom" is a whole other topic, in my opinion. It's the government's wish to earn more power, therefore things like abolition of slavery maybe was "pro-freedom", but it also gave the government a lot of people with a lot of potential to make more money, which the government would then seize. I'm maybe crazy, maybe a bit sociopathic (but I strangely don't show signs of such behaviour, it's only what some people call me) but I thing morals just didn't exist in the form they exist now, when the tribal governments formed. Morals suggest to people what could be good in the future. In a way, I thing morals aren't something people are born with, but what's imposed on people by the outside forces. May it be government, or nature. Therefore thinking non-aggression would work in a nongovernmental society is wrong. It's maybe paradoxical, but think, why such moral code was established in the first place. Is it even profitable, if it is unpunishable?

And how would you define "Essential" anyways?If you're going to decide which is Random and which is Essential then you're already endorsing the one you subjectively like and discard the others that some might prefer

**essential liberty**

Yes! because we are such a room of heroes that either we are free or die...........well if nobody is looking over us( NSA, Goverment)....you might just get what you are wishing for!........and I tell you, another 9/11 would really suck!

Correction:RINOs and Democrats. Both parties gave up on the concept of small, limited government a long time ago because they prefered political power instead of protecting their constituents. If we want to see this ago away, we have to either leave the two-party system or actually give 3rd parties a fair chance at winning. It will only get worse no matter what side you're on otherwise.

I have this strong feeling, you will be causing me much more amusement still, while it will get harder and harder for you to keep smiling as if nothing happened :) all the best for your mission, though! :)

@elliotstannard5621

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by this?

@PyrrhoVonHyperborea

2 жыл бұрын

@@elliotstannard5621 its been more than 7 years; i have no idea! Seems like something I would say as an answer to some other comment/debate (maybe posted as a standalone merely by error?) ... Or a hint at my gut-feeling, that maher was moving away from a certain line, which, judging by now, is exactly what happened. Took him a while to circle back on some common sense satire for me to get interested again, and (because of that renewed interest & activity) for youtube to be active again on even be bringing answers to such old comments of mine to my attention again . . .

"only a sith deals in absolutes" the absolute is the core of the problem. not only the radical "deserve neither" part,but right away that nonsense of "essential" freedoms: some freedoms are more important than others: I am not religious enough,to see it black and white, essential and non-essential. we are talking about a huge grey-area,and its evaluation is highly subjective. one really has to look at the tradeoff; e.g. imposing DRACONIC punishments on those that exploit the liberty-concession!

A libertarian in america is a real classical liberal. Absolute freedom is not authoritarianism, its close if not in actuality anarchy. However a LIbertarian Socialism could work ensuring the fact corporate interests and a safety net are provided for. Liberatrians say they want ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, but really dont because its just not sustainable or possible.

well i have my own ideas, but ill leave that up to people more eloquent than me.

Still no argument, huh?

"but what happens if a group of self proclaimed libertarian tries to instill certain values they see as absolute freedom was my point in using such term. As in a group of people asserting their idea of freedom on the rest, meaning it in fact is a form of authoritarianism" if libertarians forced libertarianism on the country then that act could not be authoritarianism forcing that system on a group of people (anyone who voted against the libertarian party)would be like putting you in a cage with an open door it is a cage but since the door is open you always have the power to leave

Did you ever see the love boat when you were kids hum cant remener the namr of that boat

I don't agree Bill. I think you just want to contradict Palin, and you're willing to sell yourself out for that.

It's not disjointed writing, every point clearly fits with the next. I have to say, it's hard to have writing flow as naturally when you're trying to fit it within 500 characters, no italics, and have little control of spacing. I'm sorry I missed the comma in "part makes it explicit a law abiding" between "explicit" and "a" but don't be a pedant about this.