So gour,
Which context are you referring to?
Yes I am glad you asked.
How about the context being 18th century post-Revolutionary War Britain?
Or better yet, how about actually quoting the person accurately? Ben Franklin never said what you stated, not once, and I challenge you to find
any citation that he did.
Do you know some context around Franklins quote to give it another meaning?
Of course I do, I am rather well-versed on the American revolutionary era and have referenced it countless times in these political threads.
But to answer your question, the context would be the debate over how much power should extend to the population at large. If a democracy, in itself, were even sustainable, and if the people's right for self-determination was a danger to private property rights. Obviously, today, most Americans would argue for greater rights of self-determination, and a reduction in the use of republicanism.
To that end, the quote you are referencing, which is often inaccurately attributed to Benjamin Franklin, is actually a paraphrased and gross bastardization of quote first written in a letter penned by Alexander Tytler, a Scottish aristocrat and Lord; he was preparing a formal argument regarding the dangers of democracy.
His views were just wild suppositions, especially considering the context in which they were made, there was no reference point or historical validation for his claims as there had been no large functioning democratic state in Europe at this time. He was making the statement that democracy itself is only a temporary state as it is an unsustainable period in which society will destroy itself.
And another point, the meaning is fairly lost considering the vast majority of Americans would disagree with assertions made, by whomever, on the value of a social safety net. Today, as I've stated, almost roughly 4/5 people value the safety net. So, if your argument is merely what you think a famous Framer may have said, that is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy - not a valid argument. And my citing the number of people who support it avoids an appeal to the majority, as we are referencing a democratic state of government.
Does this answer your question?
Of course your other throw away, that Franklin's quote is 200+ years old is pretty telling. Is it your position that anything written or said over 200 years ago would be useless?
It is my position that every man should learn to debate and articulate their positions without having ancient quotes do it for them. A quote can be a provoking reminder of something heralding from the past, but it must be taken into context. Your quote was taken wildly out of context, considering the period which from which it was supposedly written, and to that end the fact that it wasn't written by a Framer but someone critical of the efforts and motivations of the Framers.
The point is that you coming on here and dropping what you think is a line from Benjamin Franklin does not an argument make, it's even more telling that it isn't even a Franklin quote, showing you don't really give a damn about what Ben Franklin thinks, you're just trying to make a point.
By doing this you're ignoring the abstract and detailed points of the discussion by appealing to someone else's thoughts which are only tangentially germane to the discussion, who was not asked about the problem, and was making a supposition addressing a thought experiment regarding the virtues of democracy - not social programs.
That would explain a lot about your politics, in fact...
If you want to understand my politics, just read my posts. READ them. I think you often fail to actually comprehend them, but instead you continually make these rather sweeping assumptions.
Or you can not bother. But if that's the case then don't waste time trying to "explain a lot about (my) politics."
