This always confuses me, because it's like people who state this haven't actually read the text. I have to wonder if the guy NPR interviews has actually read it. Here's the context: In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.9 Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Let's break it down more. In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. The people on the Pennsylvania frontier are in trouble and we're worried about them. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and... We've done everything within our power... we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. ... but even they don't want us to go further (i.e. come in and take over) because ... Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. They value their liberty and freedom over our help; if we come in and make them safe, they will lose a portion of their own agency or capacity to ensure their own safety, and the safety provided by us will only be temporary. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; They couldn't get guns or ammo, but have now been given both, as a means to defend themselves, bought with money that is meant to be made back by taxes. and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. And if the Governor would just stop rejecting the bill he would be able to use that money to increase the security of the frontier. So the whole "pro-tax" thing comes in just from talking about arms and ammo bought with money that was intended to be paid back by taxes. The whole letter is pro-tax only because it's Franklin basically trying to convince the Pennsylvania governor to not reject the bill and use the money to help the frontier people being attacked by Native Americans who had sided with the French. All the "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." has to do with is Franklin pointing out that the people on the frontier don't want them to do more than provide arms and ammunition so that they can defend themselves instead of having somebody else come in and take over. And keep in mind, this is a specific instance of taxation, not an argument for continued/general taxation. The money had to come from somewhere. So it is barely "pro-taxation" at all, certainly not necessarily in general. More on reddit.com

That is not the quote. By adding those quotation marks, you are stating it is word for word. This is a reiteration of the original quote.

More on reddit.com

Ben Franklin is full of great quotes. I see this one is consistently posted by the “right” to make it seem like Franklin leaned more towards their side than that of the “left” but the truth is that although Franklin admired and fought for the liberty of the individual, he believed it was the highest ideal of the individual to serve humanity. Here is another of his quotes that shows he is far closer to the “left” than he is the “right” (at least with the single, but pertinent, issue of property rights) “...All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” ~ Benjamin Franklin More on reddit.com

I don't think Franklin is speaking of freedom in the absolute sense. If we had truly total freedom then yes, we would have license to lie and steal and do horrible things to each other. Instead, Franklin uses 'freedom' as a piece of political rhetoric, to signify what you or I might more properly call human or civil rights. Getting beyond that is difficult because the word has been hijacked by American propagandists, and acquired a hell of a lot of semantic baggage to the point that it's become fairly vapid and meaningless. But those are the essentials that I think the political sense of the word assumes. Franklin is broadly suggesting that when we begin to forfeit our civil rights we take a small step down the slippery slope towards fascism, ultimately destroying both our freedom and our security; to Franklin, it is the duty of the citizen to uphold these values. The quote has been butchered yes, but it is the word choices that are outdated; the meaning is timeless, and technology will never protect us wholly from the human will to power and tyranny. EDIT: Thought I'd check the Oxford English Dictionary to give this credibility. Sure enough, there are several definitions of freedom, including the one Franklin most likely intended: The state or fact of not being subject to despotic or autocratic control, or to a foreign power; civil liberty; independence. More on reddit.com