[Cardfan1]

Umm, maybe the explanation's just a bit more complex than that.

The concept of essential liberty as it truly exists, is at the corporate level, not the individual. The notion of essential liberty was in the case cited, a narrowly applied generalization which had to do specifically with national defense. This particular reference came by way of a chastisement, by no less than Franklin himself, as essential liberty applied specifically and only to the Pennsylvania Assembly of 1755 and the charter granted it at the behest of the people. The framework was the government's responsibility to insure the protection of both liberty and security for the people during the French and Indian War. Here was what the indignant Benjamin Franklin having been put into the position of arbiter actually said; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The Penn family, who had vast holdings of land in Pennsylvania, were trying to dodge the justly exacted taxes imposed on them by the Assembly. You see, funding were needed for the defensive efforts to continue on the frontier in order to repel the French and Indian incursion. Franklin found himself being maneuvered into a choice between giving up the moral standards of effective governance, or providing special favors to the Penn family and in so doing, barter off the very liberty the Assembly was charged to defend. Hence the words, "purchase a little temporary Safety" In making this argument he was certainly not standing before the English Crown

The last application one would ever want to make of Franklin's quote would be to that of individual civil rights. Rather, liberty and security were coequal concerns of the people, corporately. But then or now, in no case could we the people expect to remain a sovereign people via any sort of tradeoff of liberty for security, as was the case in the Penn family's attempt to avoid taxation, and in so doing thwart the rightful purview of the legislature.

The specter of the afore mentioned cannibalistic anti-logic, endures to this very day, as of late the people of this great land found themselves again in want of a champion. Enter one Donald J Trump and his prosecution of resisting political correctness. The very concept of which tears presently at this nation's underbelly. At the insistence of liberal legislators and activists such as the imminent Reverend Al and of course folks like yourself, the people have been defrauded of Franklin's vision of essential liberty. How? Well I'm glad you asked, because like the Penn family, special interest groups have usurped the will of the people and the common good of the people, by asking for and receiving legislative carve outs, byes of all manner, goodies and taxpayer provided gifts quid pro quo fashion, in a destructive tradeoff for their votes. The proper name for this disgusting pickle is Identity Politics and is the stock-in-trade of the Democrat.

All of that said, it occurs to me at this juncture; that the resistance and the media and reluctant doctors (and yes I'm referring in part to Fauci) need to stop the politicizing of the pandemic and get on with treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine. At that point we can stop the sensationalizing of having millions of ventilators laying around, WBTW to be relegated to going on one according to the doctors, is akin to a death sentence in the first place. Additionally. If you are one of those with underlying conditions or age related susceptibility to the virus, by all means continue to stay home and protect yourselves until this thing abates. It would be a small consideration in the face of what exists right now, for stores to continue special shopping hours for example to accommodate such folks. But let those who're ready to get on with life go begin to go out and reclaim their lives via the rolling 'reopen' of the Administration's suggestion.

Thanks for squaring me on the historical context of the quote, but your interpretation is a stretch.

1. The quote and context is pro-taxation. 2. Ironically, the federal government of the period was trying to protect those who were avoiding paying taxes. 3. The entire scenario literally promotes the government's right act for the collective.

Essentially nailing the argument that the Governor was right to act. :thanks: