🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.175848.1578@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>, denning@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
> > I'll leave the response to that well-known radical, Benjamin Franklin:
> > 
> > "Those who give up a little liberty to obtain safety deserve neither
> > liberty nor safety."
> > 
> > -- George Mitchell (george@tessi.com)
> This is a wonderful quote, but I don't see liberty and safety as opposites.  

Beg pardon?  No-one said that they were.  The point was that in some cases,
the only way to increase one's safety is to trade off some degree of liberty
(in-house video surveillance in 1984 was a perfect example).

> If I can't walk through some park, say, without a reasonable expectation of
> safety, I lose some liberty to move about freely.  Maybe women are 

True, but that wasn't one of the cases in question.  If the police decide
that the only way to make sure you don't get mugged/raped/murdered is to
not let you out at night, what would you think?

> more sensitive to this than men because we are more vulnerable.  As 
> another example, if we as a society don't give up the liberty to kill 
> whomever we want or take whatever we want, we also relinquish the 
> liberty to live without complete fear of being killed or ripped off.
> Society is a contract which requires a lot of give and take.
> 
> Dorothy Denning

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.