"Freedom of or Freedom From"

 

Yeah, I shamelessly clipped this from "Farcebook", again.  I ran across it taking a "Microbreak" if y'all know what I am talking about and "saved it".  A gentleman named "Don Stratton" wrote the addendum to the original Michael Smith article.  I give credit where credit is due.

Yes, our founding documents preclude socialism; it is not in any way consistent with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or freedom, for that matter. "Fairness" and "democracy" as meant by today's libtards are nothing more than code for communism as are "equity" and "compassion". Michael Smith lays it out more eloquently; taxation enslaves both the payer and destroys the parasite for whom the taxes are confiscated. Every penny destroys our republic and propels us towards the hellish third world, European model that always ends with an unarmed citizenry helpless against authoritarian, atheist ideologues like Lenin, Mao and countless others-Starmer Macron, Mussolini, etc.

Michael Smith

1d ·

Since the American left insists on denying the morality of traditional America while using government to impose their own, I thought it time to further explore this quote from John Adams, written in his October 11, 1798 message to the officers of the Massachusetts militia:

“…we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Why is this 200-plus-year-old observation still relevant?

Because it strikes at the heart of the modern conflict between Statists and Anti-Statists.

The Statist impulse in contemporary politics often chases what I see as a dream—others might call it a nightmare—of enforced secularity. It is true that the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But that clause does not require society to be stripped of religion, nor does it demand that moral reasoning be banished from public life. It prevents the establishment of a national church; it does not establish a national vacuum.

It is true that progressives do not hate freedom; they just define it very differently. Modern conservatism emphasizes “freedom of”: freedom of opportunity, of speech, of religion, of self-determination. Progressivism often emphasizes “freedom from”: freedom from economic risk, from unequal outcomes, from social instability, from religious influence. The conservative approach requires limited regulation and trusts citizens to navigate life’s challenges. The progressive approach seeks expanded regulation to shield citizens from those challenges.

This divide surfaces most clearly in debates over the welfare state, health care, and taxation. Conservatives are routinely accused of selfishness for opposing expansive redistribution or resisting higher tax rates on “the rich.” The argument is familiar: if someone can afford to pay more, fairness requires it. Opposition, therefore, must be selfishness—but selfishness and fairness are not legal categories. They are moral ones.

There is no constitutional clause outlawing selfishness. There is no statute mandating fairness in every human exchange. In nature, fairness is not a governing principle; the cougar survives because it is stronger than the rabbit. Human beings, however, are not governed solely by instinct. We construct moral systems—often rooted in religious belief—to restrain raw power and appetite. Civilization depends on those internal restraints.

Adams understood that the Constitution is a legal framework, not a moral engine. It presumes citizens capable of self-government. The Founders intentionally limited federal power because they recognized that morality cannot be successfully legislated. When law attempts to do the work of conscience, it multiplies itself endlessly. Each new regulation creates unintended consequences, which then require further regulations. Legalism becomes both symptom and accelerant of moral decline.

The Constitution speaks to equal protection and due process. It does not promise equal outcomes. “All men are created equal” refers to equality in rights, not in results. Fairness in governance means impartial application of law, not perpetual redistribution to correct every disparity.

The nexus of legality and morality is perhaps most visible in the welfare state. Conservatives often oppose expansive redistribution not because they despise the poor, but because they believe dependency erodes dignity and self-governance. Progressives often see redistribution as a moral imperative, interpreting resistance as refusal to share. The deeper question is whether government itself can act morally when it operates through coercion. Market transactions are voluntary; government actions are backed by force. Taxes are not charitable donations. They are compulsory. When government transfers wealth from one citizen to another, it does so under threat of penalty.

From a biblical perspective, the 8th and 10th Commandments—“Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet”—frame this tension sharply. If a majority votes to take from a minority for its own benefit, does democratic process alone render the act moral? Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the “tyranny of the majority,” where numerical superiority becomes justification for encroachment.

Tax data often cited in these debates illustrate the imbalance: a relatively small percentage of earners pay a disproportionately large share of federal income taxes, while a significant portion pay little or none. In a system where one person equals one vote, but not one person equals one share of the tax burden, the temptation for majorities to vote benefits to themselves is ever-present. The moral hazard is obvious.

Economists speak of substitution theory—how behavior changes in response to incentives. Applied socially, as government expands its role in caring for the poor or regulating outcomes, individuals may gradually substitute state action for personal responsibility and private charity. Government becomes not merely administrator but moral arbiter. In extreme historical cases, the state becomes quasi-deity, demanding allegiance once reserved for religion.

This is why Adams’ warning matters. The Constitution cannot restrain passions if citizens themselves are not restrained by an internal moral code. A free republic depends on self-governing people. If morality is outsourced to legislation, freedom shrinks to accommodate enforcement.

The bottom line is this: caring for our fellow man does not require surrendering liberty as payment. Society can be compassionate without being coercive and freedom, prosperity, security, and justice are not mutually exclusive—but they do require a citizenry capable of moral self-restraint. Adams’ insight was structural, not sectarian, and a constitution designed for free people assumes those people possess the character to remain free.

Without that character, no parchment barrier can stand against the inevitable assaults.