I just completed an exchange on Facebook about the title of this post, and wanted to share my comments about the subject since I feel it's representative of what I think about the matter.
It all started with an opinion that basically stated that Republican complaints today about the Democratic Administration's spying practices are a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'.
At some point I opined
"Yeah! And just think of all the information about us in the hands of Google and FB! Spying on people is nothing new. It was an art form honed by the French with the technology of their day when Ben Franklin walked the streets of Paris between 1775 to 1785."
One person made the following statement:
"Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up Liberty for security, deserve neither". Every power you bestow upon a Government, will be abused by that Government. You see it everyday. 95% of our officials represent no one but themselves."
True enough I suppose. My response was:
"I guess my life is rather boring since I really don't care if it gets published in the NYT on pg 2 (I say pg 2 because there's no question in my mind that it certainly won't appear on pg 1). Quite frankly I really don't care if they surveil me; and I neither approve nor disapprove of it. It's a fact and reality of real life in a real world and universe that's not all too terribly friendly. We err, I think, to believe we can operate safely and effectively in that environment according to utopian egalitarian rules, theories, and philosophies. I, for one, have found out they don't work in interpersonal relations between friends and family; and know they won't among the vast unrelated billions on earth and countless others in the universe. It's comforting to know that the surveillance is working—at least somewhat.
I guess it also proves that the brave new world of social technology doesn't work near as well as one-on-one, face-to-face planning of anything with a code book of innocuous statements to communicate ideas using electronic mediums...and don't forget the postal service—slow but effective (I wonder when the intelligence community will assign a staff of 'steamers' to the post office).
The question is who's doing the eroding; and when is it better to erode liberty yourself, at a slower pace, than allow someone else to erode it at a faster pace. If we don't define Liberty ourselves and in the context of the real world, I'm afraid we risk losing it completely."
I'd also like to share here two additional thoughts on my part that were not included in the Facebook exchange. First, the French loved and respected Ben Franklin precisely because he was disingenuous. He was the quintessential 'used car salesman' of his time. Truth was an art form for him; and yet he was viewed as basically honest, truthful, and a man of his word—sort of! Second, we risk injury anytime we fail to define and apply ideals of any sort in a practical real-world fashion. I love the following statement in this regard made by Ernest Hemingway in his book “Death in the Afternoon”.
"Too much honor destroys a man quicker than too much of any other fine quality."
One final thought I'd like to proffer is actually a link to an opinion entitled "What Ben Franklin Really Said".
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/
The upshot of the article is that interpreting Franklin's words in the way they've been interpreted is another case of interpretation out of context. No surprise!
