I figure I may as well preempt the inevitable low effort comments pointing out he said that quote in defense of federal taxation.
Yes, that's where that particular quote comes from but Franklin said the above quote a million different ways in various correspondence about all sorts of subjects.
No, therefore I’m revoking your right to operate any motor vehicle within city limits.
Christ. You can’t drop rhetoric like that and expect anyone to take it seriously or for it to lead anywhere productive.
For one, it’s an outright broken metaphor. Murder implies intent; death caused by freedom of movement is incidental. Both the law and human psychology treat these differently.
Is there some deeper conversation to be had about positive vs negative rights? Yes. But you’re never going to get there through bad faith rhetoric and broken metaphors.
> No, therefore I’m revoking your right to operate any motor vehicle within city limits.
I largely agree with your statement that rhetoric isn't helpful.
However, interestingly, Driving is a privilege (at least that's how it's framed in Australia) not a right, and you must pass tests to be allowed that privilege, and that privilege will be revoked if you misuse it.
My point was that the quote is meaningless because "essential" is not defined. I'm not sure how this became specifically about driving vehicles. Many people use this quote to suggest any loss of freedom for security is unjust. But obviously we're all ok with restricting the right to straight up murder someone with your bare hands.
Is it an essential freedom to not wear a mask? I think not. you may disagree.
If is an essential freedom to leave your home? I'd say 99.999% of the time yes but exceptions do exist.
Lots of diligently masked up, vaccinated people have spread coronavirus to others. Are they murderers in your book, too? Can you quantify how much effort (or virtual signaling) is required to escape the murderer label?
