Quote and Query

[shi_koi]

I read this quote by Benjamin Franklin: 'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' after reading someone say that a wise man once said that 'those who trade freedom for security, deserve neither freedom or security', and it made me think quite a bit.

For a start, how the meanings differ depending on the context, and what that could mean for different people. I'm going to try and describe my thought process in this matter, so it may seem a little bit odd or confusing - it is to me, and it's my brain!

First. What kind of freedom, and for what kind of security? Are we talking about the kind of freedom that you would associate with a job? Like instead of choosing an interesting career which may make it hard to find employment, you choose a run-of-the-mill salary-based job.

Since work makes up a large portion of our lives, that would, in essence, still be a situation of choosing security instead of freedom, and in what situation would that be acceptable? Since it's what most people choose, regardless of dependents or not.

If you take the quote directly, and take it to mean personal liberty and literal safety, what situations would this apply to? Should there be times when such a statement would not be feasibly applicable?

Could I create a situation in order to apply this statement to myself? I tried to think. First, I decided, I had to decide what 'essential liberty, and 'temporary safety' were, by my personal definitions.

What is 'essential liberty' to me? I would have to say that the root of my essential liberty is the freedom to act in a manner which ensures fairness through choice. For example, what I say, where I go, what I choose to buy, who I choose to see - or not, my interests, my hobbies, how I spend my money, my religion, my general non-specific behaviour and the ability to live in a style which causes little or no discomfort to my individual tastes, be that through my friends, family and people in authority who affect me directly.

What would destroy my 'essential liberty'? Being unable to chose my religion, how I live, what I say, believe, think, and where I go. Being unable to express myself, either through interaction with others, through my interests and hobbies, clothes, music and food, or being made to conform to another's belief in lifestyle without reason. Being submitted to abuse or unfairness and inequality in my daily life.

What does 'temporary safety' mean to me? Feeling physically safe, having a roof over my head, being warm and dry, not over-worked or constantly tired. Knowing where I will be tomorrow. Knowing when I can or will be able to eat. Being able to go to sleep knowing I'm not in immediate danger. The knowledge that my family and friends are safe. Being able to find and keep work or a career or being able to gain information and knowledge through schooling, college, study, libraries, etc...basically good and free access to information I want or need.

What would destroy my 'temporary safety'? Not knowing where I'll sleep that night, and similar circumstances, being constantly cold and wet and uncomfortable for long periods with no chance of relief, not knowing when I can/will eat and no resources to procure food for either myself or my family. Being in any danger, either short-term, constant, or having the threat of harm hang above me. Being harmed. Being unable to find gainful long-term employment. Not having any money. No education, or information, with no chance to gain either.

So, now that I have this in my mind. Can I create some scenarios? Easily.

Situation one:

 I find myself in a strange place, maybe hurt, maybe not. I do not have any money, it's cold, getting dark, and I don't know anyone to contact for help. I do not know where the authorities are, and I have no way to find out. I have no options.

After a few nights or more of this, with the situation not improving, I get an offer from someone. Work for them, on their property in exchange for room, board and medical treatment should the need arise. The problem? The property is in the middle of nowhere, and I will be unable to leave once I sign a contract. I have no other comfortable options and I am getting weaker by the day, with the threat of harm becoming more likely with each passing day.

Would I go? Would I trade my liberty, my freedom for safety and security?

Honestly? Yes.

Situation two:

There's a job promotion coming up, with an amazing jump in pay, enough to secure my finances for life by enabling me to buy a house and have extra for a nest egg and emergencies - and that's just for the short-term, long-term it looks even better.

The catch?

I have to change my religion to one suitably comfortable for the person/firm I will be working for. This entails deciding how I will dress, who I can speak to, and where I go. My expenses will be monitored, and my expenditure in goods may be vetoed. My personal life will remain free from scrutiny only so long as it's upheld in an honourable manner.

Would I choose the job? Would I trade my liberty, my freedom for safety and security?

In this instance...no. I wouldn't.

End scenarios.

So, what's the difference? In the first scenario I chose security, in the second, freedom.

The question I must then ask myself, is why? Why would I choose freedom in one situation, but not in the other?

I think I would have to say that in the first instance my standard of life was very bad. Regardless of how it occurred, I was not personally safe. I knew that I would come to harm and possibly lose my life, and thus any chance of ever regaining my freedom or security if I did not give up something there and then. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

However, in the second case, it was only my level of comfort which was affected. My life was not hard, I was not in danger, and things wouldn't change for the worst simply because I did not chose to accept conditions on a promotion which I did not depend on or urgently need.

So the difference was life over comfort.

If the scenarios changed though, like I had skills worth money in the first instance, or street savvy, or money...I may not have chosen security. In the second, if I had debts and/or multiple dependents, I may have chosen security over freedom, to ensure the health and wellbeing of my family.

I guess I won't know how I'd really react, since both scenarios are merely imaginary. But I now have an inkling, and a slightly greater understanding of the quote and it's application.

Could I throw out an invitation from any readers here to give me their views on this, or their own scenarios and decisions, and their reasons why?

Hugs all,

~Shi-koi~

Comments

[cherry-san.livejournal.com]

Hm, that's quite interesting and I do find myself agreeing with you. I was actually thinking of your logic before you gave your own explanation. The difference between your two scenarios is rather profound. The first choice is made because it's either give up freedom or potentially die. The second is implied that you already have a life and are not in a dire situation. Giving up freedom would simply be out of vanity and greed, not neccesity to live.

Mine own situation? xD Hah, I don't think I can think of anything, honestly. -braindead?- <3

[shi-koi.livejournal.com]

Aaah, braindead. I know that feeling.

I was surprised to find it so easy to come up with those two scenarios, but that's probably the fic-writer part of my brain coming forward. I don't know if I can say I agree with the whole freedom and security issue, (even though I posted this entry about it) and I know that any opinion I form now will be subject to change in the future, but it was an interesting idea I had to sound out, if for nothing else, than my own peace of mind.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with a bit of vanity or greed, but since I was addressing the issue from my own POV I had to lay aside the part of my which desperately wanted to play devil's advocate (not to mention my tendency to ramble from the subject).

Am I being confusing? Sorry, I haven't been to sleep yet and it's 8:16 am here. I'm literally writing this with a headache from too much caffeine. Heh.

[shi-koi.livejournal.com]

Thank you! ::beams::

I don't know anything about politics, seriously. So it's interesting to see how you view this topic.

I'm one of those people who would bow down to pressure from a government, whilst trying to find a way to escape it. I don't think I'd be brave enough to actually fight, or resist or anything else, since I don't cope well with fear. I that kind of situation I'd most likely choose comfort (of sorts) over freedom. Cowardly, yes, but I know my own faults.

I read somewhere that humanity's greatest asset is hope, the hope that things will get better, that people have a chance to set things right, etc, etc, etc... Personally, I don't believe that. I think humanity's greatest asset is the ability to survive and change. After all, governments don't last forever, but the kind of people who design and run them are created with each generation.

However, if you place that kind of issue in a more personal context, ie, if I saw a person being beaten in front of me as I walked down the street, simply because they did/said something wrong (or something similar) according to the social/political mores of the government or people in power I wonder what I'd do.

If it was a child I would place myself in harms way to help them. That much I do know. But if it were a stranger? Or someone I disliked? Would I have the moral fortitude to give up my safety for the freedom to act in a manner that I wish - which in this case is not to see someone needlessly injured?

I don't know.

Someone said to me that in our modern society, none of us are truly free. We live by our laws, within our laws, and we create our own laws, as well as the constraints of moral and acceptable socially-based behaviour, most of which are ingrained in us as we grow up, and that because of this we will never be truly free.

A part of me agrees, but the greater part can't see how that really affects the core issue of freedom vs security, and how much of it is interlinked.

Some part of me wants to turn a blind eye so I don't have to think about it.

[rukawagf.livejournal.com]

you have to change your RELIGION??? o.o;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

it really depends. For me, I chose life over comfort. Gawd, i hate my decision but it's worth it as well. I'd hate myself if i chose comfort. Either way, no win situation for me.

i have friends who chose "comfort" and are perfectly fine with it. i think it depends on what you want in life?

[shi-koi.livejournal.com]

Well, luckily for me both scenarios weren't real, just a way to think things through and make a point.

I think in most situations I'd choose my life first, rather than merely comfort - but that's at my age now. In ten years time I might decide that comfort is more worthwhile.

I think you're right, it does depend on what you want in life. That, and our experiences and personality.

H. Klinton.

[(Anonymous)]

H. Klinton vs Obama. How you think who will win elections in USA?

Re: H. Klinton.

[shi-koi.livejournal.com]

I have no idea. I don't follow politics at all. Who's Obama anyway?

Besides, I live in the UK, and even the stuff over here doesn't interest me in the slightest.

[calenchamien.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with your choices in those two situations, as to me, it seems like common sense. However, I'm not so sure about your definition of 'temporary safety'. It seems to me that a person would experience 'temporary safety' when living, say, in times and in a country of war. Or being of a minority in an area that is greatly majority-biased (if that makes any sense); whereas the situation you described seems more to me like a 'permanent safety' kind of situation, where you're pretty much guaranteed that your life isn't going to change much from day to day, and your have no reason to believe that you wil be put in a dangerous situation without actively seeking it out - like walking down a dark alley in an area you know to be dangerous.
In which case, come of the qualifiers you've put on 'temporary safety' I would attribute more to 'permanent safety': the part about being over-worked and constantly tired for example, I would as a small concern in comparison to knowing where I would be when I woke up. Equally, while I would be concerned about finding work, I would be less concerned about having any particular job as a career, or being able to access schooling. Those concerns, I would save until I was in a 'permanent safety' situation.
So, here's a challenge, if you go with my definition, how does that change your answers?

[shi-koi.livejournal.com]

I don't think it really would change my answers.

Although, to be fair, in order to understand why, you'd have to know some background information as to why my choices and decisions were made as they were.

I grew up moving from country to country all my life. I lived in mostly third world countries, with no stable home, or income, or support. Visas ran out every six months, and so hopping from town to town, and country to country was simply my way of life.

I can attest, because of that, that information was a major concern, without it, well, danger comes from many places, and you had to be prepared. Local knowledge was a must, and so was getting access to libraries, leaflets and other sources.

If you have skills which are needed or wanted in the area you are in, you can get yourself in a semi-safe situation, and a career would ensure a marketable and reliable background, regardless of where you ended up.

Being tired and over-worked is a killer. It's not something many people understand, but your health takes a nose-dive, depression kicks in, and your work suffers, and can lead to you being kicked out of your job, which makes it harder to get another one.

Money makes the world go round, and people who say it doesn't have never been so tight for money that their life truly suffers.

I believe it depends on your background and upbringing. I'm not political, I don't want to be, I've seen too much to turn me completely off the idea, and in my experience, there's nothing an individual can do in most places without great personal cost, and I was always too selfish for that.

In a way, I routinely gave up my freedom to act, choose and and embody my beliefs, in order to grant myself temporary safety in the places I was in. No rocking the boat.

I think it stems back to when I was about eight. My family was staying with friends in Thailand. We were out in the middle of nowhere, in a large house, with a few other families. I was in the living room with a bunch of other kids, we'd been playing and our babysitter had been watching us, and let us wear ourselves out and fall asleep where we were.

Some of the others had been taken upstairs, and there were about a handful of us downstairs with a few parents, I don't know why, I'd slept through it.

We were woken up rather rudely by men with guns.

It's odd what you remember about such situations. I remember the lass who babysat us, grabbed me and shoved my behind a chair and held onto me. We were robbed – not that we had much of value – and no-one died or got hurt, but I also saw that no-one protested or fought back. Nobody did anything heroic like fighting back, we just stayed out of the way until they left.

I wasn't even all that scared, just numb from shock, and wondering what was going on. I think I was too young to really understand.

The next day we all cleaned up, and life went on as normal. We stayed for another few more weeks or so, maybe a month, before we were escorted out of the country because our visas were about to end.

We were escorted out by part of the army, and one young soldier was particularly nice and carried me, gave me a piggyback and smiled and laughed with me. That memory is more outstanding than the other one.

It drummed into me at a young age that making waves was not good, and that bad things happened but you couldn't do anything, because if you did, you'd make them worse. It...prepared me...to lose more of my freedom for safety, and skewed what I think of as temporary versus permanent safety.

I think that our definitions of what 'temporary' vs 'permanent' safety are, are going to be different depending on the person, and what experiences they have. Mine are based on my own experiences, and what I've found I've needed, wanted, or wished for when I've been in an unsteady situation.

In a permanent safety situation, I'd be rather more selfish. I'd want a home, not a house, a family/lover, a steady income with no deviations. Knowing what I'm going to be doing in a month/year/ten years.

I also know that for someone with different experiences, that list will undoubtedly be different.

Throwing a challenge back to you (because I'm extremely curious), what scenarios would you come up with, and what would your definitions be, and why?

Hugs,

~Shi-koi~

[calenchamien.livejournal.com]

ooh damn it, I think I might have to stay up late again. As you said, the differences in our definitions likely come down to personal experiences. I myself have moved around very little, and I have never experienced true poverty (for which I am very grateful), so I think I would be more likely to accept a temporary situation - a house, rather than a home, etc.
Since my father was - and is, when I associate with him often enough for him to feel comfortable falling back into our old roles - verbally and emotionally abusive (once again, I feel incredibly lucky that he was never sexually or physically abusive... at least not with me) I place emotional well-being lower than physical well-being. I know that I can live through depression, and have learned to seperate myself from my emotions well enough that my work doesn't suffer (much). Fortunately, my work place is constantly short-staffed, so I have job security in that I'm one of the very few people who actually know what they're doing. Unfortunately, it also means I'm exhausted most of the time, since I, along with everyone else, am working fifty to sixty hour weeks. Nice paycheck, but rather soul-destroying.
So let's see, I'm defining 'essential freedom' as the right to be treated as a person, ie. the right ot express my own opinions, follow my own schedule in terms of what time I eat, sleep, etc., and act upon my desires, such as writing.



Let's say I have lost my job and my apartment, can't find another one, and for some reason, can't reach any of my relatives or friends. However, someone I am aquainted with, one I've met a few times and feel reasonably comfortable with, offers to allow me to live with them until I get a new job/place to live. However, there would be restrictions, such as a curfew, designated meal times - in which I could eat, or wait for the next - and I would not be allowed a key, in order to come and go as I please, nor would I be allowed access to a computer. In short, their life would supplant mine.
Answer: Well, on the one hand, my body's safe, and as I always keep a few spare copies of my resume around (I think I would at least be smart enough to print out a few before losing my apartment), I think I would take the offer as well. I think I could live with losing those freedoms until I feel assured that I can regain a permanent safety. Were, however, there a maxim on being able to leave at all, such as there was in your example, or were the person a total stranger, I would say no. In my experience, not having the right to or the ability to walk away from a situation is a total nightmare. Equally, were the offer coming from a total stranger, I would have no guarantee that I would be safe in saying yes. In that case, I'm not sure what I would do, but I'd deal with it.

Hmm... I think I'll have to leave it at that. I can't think of another situation while my brain is fogged from working a twelve-hour shift on four hours' sleep, and I have another twelve-hour shift coming up tomorr- er... today. I might come up with some more later, but for now, I need to sleep.