Leaving Egypt Ministries, Obadiah D. Morris

One common saying we often hear from Americans is that they “prefer a dangerous freedom over a peaceful slavery.” This quote, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, is a translation of a Latin phrase he had written in a letter to James Madison. 

The context of this saying can help us to understand at least what Jefferson meant by it. In this short letter, he proposes three types of social-political orders: anarchism, republican-style government, and monarchy. Respectively, he says these are the ways of the Native Americans, the new United States system, and the old regimes of Europe. He rejects anarchism as as infeasible for any sizable group of people, and is only constrasting this idea of “limited government” republics, which he concedes are less than perfect, to the monarchic regimes that he says as always enslaving. 

So the “liberty” he was referring to was not even an actual free society of an absence of human civil government, and the slavery he was referring to was not the inherent bondage of human civil government per se. Jefferson was trying to say that republican-style government, which he admitted had its own evils, was the “dangerous liberty” that was preferable to the more guaranteed evils of monarchic regimes, which he is suggesting is the peaceful slavery. Right before his famous quote, written in Latin, he says, “weigh this [the evils that still exist under Republics] against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing.”

Thus, the quote, as used by Jefferson, was not even to refer to the actual liberty of a society that is free from human rulers. He made it clear that he prefers republican-style government to either anarchism or monarchism. The “dangerous liberty” he was speaking of was not even the society without a political institution, but a society with it, which he believed would be relatively limited in power but still have its own problems. He was merely attempting to say that American-style, constitutional republics are relatively better, and that we may take the (supposedly) few dangers that come with them, to avoid the ones that come with monarchies. 

A false choice

The way that most men probably mean this today is to actually compare a genuine Liberty, that is a society without political power at all, to statist systems in general, which is a much more accurate dichotomy than Jefferson’s more or less meaningless distinction between “constitutional republics” and monarchies, both which evidently bring all manners of political evils with them and do so even as a divine judgment against a people who set up kings or presidents, parliaments or congresses, princes or politicians. Every shape or form of human civil government has proven to be tyrannical, the supposedly “limited constitutional republic” no less than the old British crown that it was supposedly separating and differentiating itself from. And they are all raised up against God by sinners who seek to advance the kingdoms of the world that they are supposed to be repenting from to seek the Kingdom of God instead. 

Besides the problem with this Jeffersonian political dichotomy of constitutional republics versus monarchical regimes, which presents a narrow contrast between two forms of human civil government and conveniently dismisses anarchism in the process, there is a deeper issue with the concepts of “dangerous liberty” or “peaceful slavery” when we consider the former to refer to an anarchist society without human/political rulers and the latter to refer to a statist society that has them. It illegitimately portrays liberty as inherently insecure or unpeaceful, though at least with the benefit of being free from human rulers, and presents state control as peaceful, yet requiring submission to tax bondage as the “price of civilization and security.”

When people repeat this phrase, they implicitly accept the statist view that liberty is dangerous and state control is peaceful, and that one must weigh their options and decide what they value more: the insecure, unpeaceful, lawless, and disorderly anarchist society, or the supposedly secure, peaceful, lawful, and orderly statist society. It makes people think that they must ask themselves if they really like freedom so much that they’re willing to go without protection, or if they really hate being ruled so badly that they want to lose out on its (alleged) benefits of safety.

By giving into this false dichotomy, people work to fuel the statist’s argument that political slavery is worth the security that it allegedly brings with it, and that, as valuable as it might seem on paper, we cannot trust Liberty because it is too dangerous. It works to reinforce the lie that “the ends justify the means” — that invading a people’s liberty is “worth” the “security” that is allegedly obtained by doing so.

In a way, it is easy to understand the point that people are trying to make when they repeat this phrase and ebb on the side of “dangerous liberty.” They are almost honorably telling the statists that they don’t care, they will accept the dangers to have it. The whole statist assumption is that freedom is full of risks and lacks the alleged security provided by militaries, police, human lawmakers, or the “social safety nets” of government welfare systems. These people find their salvation in human civil government and present a free society that is absent of one as a dangerous landscape where men lack security from their enemies. The people who side with “dangerous liberty” are attempting to provide a refutation of this by saying they don’t care about the security that supposedly comes with statism or the dangers that supposedly come with Liberty. They are trying to show that whatever freedom might bring, it is better than being ruled by men and having whatever luxuries these systems are thought to bring. As Sancho says in Don Quixote,

“I’d rather lie in summer under the shade of an oak, and in winter wrap myself in a double sheep-skin jacket in freedom, than go to bed between holland sheets and dress in sables under the restraint of a government.”

Unfortunately, this popular quote by Jefferson and the understanding that comes with it concedes too much. It is true that if men had to choose, “dangerous liberty” is preferable to the alleged peace and security of a statist society. It would be better to provide for your own protection than to have men provide it for you and throw you in cage when you don’t pay them money (which shows statism to not be peaceful at all). But the idea of “peaceful slavery” (or “dangerous liberty”) is only an alleged one. Accepting a lack of peace and security in a society that practices liberty under God, or the supposed security given by men who choose to be ruled by Caesars, is not a real choice that men must make. God did not set men up to be free only to leave them insecure, and He does not allow them to pursue false gods and their false systems without coming under judgment for doing this, in the form of insecurity and oppression.

This idea of a “dangerous liberty” or a “peaceful slavery” clearly presents a false dichotomy, and one where God and His Liberty is made to look bad and Caesar and his alleged security is made to look good in comparison. It suggests that people choose between an insecure society without human rulers and must accept this insecurity as the cost of this freedom, or a “secure” society under political rulers where a people accept civil slavery as the cost for obtaining this security. This false idea implies that to enjoy liberty, one must forgo protection and security that is supposedly only provided by governments, soldiers, and police, and that the only way to gain such security is to surrender freedom and accept political bondage as the price for safety and protection from enemies.

All these things are lies. As much as people may mean to say that they’ll gamble on Liberty over statism, to have ever accepted this notion of “dangerous liberty” was an unnecessary concession to the statists that freedom is actually dangerous and that government is actually peaceful — that the trade-off men must choose between is either an unsecured liberty or a secure slavery. If either of these were true, then what would even be the point of liberty? If it was the statist society that brought security from oppression, then this would be a free society. But we know it’s not. The State operates on violence and will very unpeacefully shoot those who resist its demands. Some “security” that is when men will be cracked over the head with a police baton if they don’t obey these “security-givers.”

It is this type of false dichotomy, which seems to weigh on most everyone’s mind when they accept their tax bondage as “necessary” for keeping the “bad guys” away, that prevents them from seeking the peaceful liberty that is found in God’s natural order. Sayings like this only corrupt men’s minds into thinking that living freely as God wants of us to is fraught with dangers, and that the only way to avoid these dangers is to accept men to rule over you as the alleged order-givers of society. 

This false dichotomy is a misrepresentation of liberty under God, as well as of the slavery that exists under men. Liberty isn’t dangerous, and statism isn’t safe and secure. Quite the contrary. Statism is the most dangerous thing that has ever existed for men, leaving tens of millions of men dead in the twentieth century alone, and it is only in a free society where men may find security, peace, justice, and law. It is not actually the case that men trade liberty for security when they give up their freedom for “protection” in a State, and it has been aptly said that those who do deserve neither. 

To be sure, we aren’t pretending that Liberty is a utopia, that there are no risks involved, or that everything is entirely conflict-free when there is not a State to rule over men. As the nineteenth century French anarchist, Gustave de Molinari put it, “Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will.” Moreover, we are not presenting an entirely rosy picture where men no longer have any responsibilities to others whatsoever or no more obligations to work, produce, trade, and share. Indeed, it was our slothfulness to the ways of the God’s Kingdom—serving our neighbors directly on our own out of personal responsibility rather than outsourcing it to human rulers—that, along with idolatry for men, wound us up in political bondage. But for there to ever be the possibility of justice, law, and liberty, a society must be free of state rulers and systems, which only corrupt these things and do so even as a form of divine judgment upon a people who failed to trust in God to provide for them. Men must do the work of the Lord to live free, and they must be free to do the work of the Lord.

Peaceful liberty and the Bible

What I wish to show here is how untrue this alleged tradeoff suggested in this popular quote here is in regard to Scripture. This dichotomy of a “dangerous liberty” or “peaceful slavery” is a worldly one that only statists believe in, who think that it’s necessary to throw away their liberty for the alleged benefit of obtaining the security and “law and order” that human government is assumed to bring, or that it’s necessary to throw away security by choosing God’s Liberty and that all those who do it risk going unprotected.

This famous quote by Jefferson, and the way it is used today, is not a Biblically-valid dichotomy. The Bible consistently teaches that all those who have faith in God and trust in His free society will also find safety, peace, and blessings. And not only this, but also that those who trust in the supposed “peaceful slavery” of statism will only find insecurity, disorder, lawlessness, impoverishment, and a curse!

It is a fallacy to think that those who trust in God’s liberty and are obedient to His ways, ie., who keeps His commands to not set up other false gods to rule over them, must accept the tradeoff of insecurity and instability. As the psalmist says, “I will walk in freedom, for I have devoted myself to your commandments” (Psalm 119:45). Those who obey God and avoid seeking man’s kingdoms will find liberty, not danger. 

Not only do men not have to open themselves up to being attacked by their enemies should they forgo the alleged protection granted by human civil government (ie., accept a “dangerous liberty), but enemies (eg., statist occupiers) only come upon a people who don’t have faith in God to save them. In the Bible, God was always a savior and protector to those who placed their faith in God alone. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1). Those who seek God and His Liberty are not left insecure, which is effectively the statist argument that while God may save their soul, He lets people down in the earthly realm and leaves them in need of human kings. This was the fallacy of the Israelites when they sought human kings believing that God doesn’t actually protect people from their enemies (1 Samuel 8).

Trusting in God alone

Scripture says otherwise. “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runs into it and is safe” (Proverbs 18:10). It upholds the Lord as a people’s protector. “You have been my refuge, a tower of strength against the enemy” (Psalm 61:3). The prophets saw no reason that men were needed to supposedly supplement the lack of security that God provided for those who sought His Liberty. They believed God was their everything. “Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. For the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and He also has become my salvation” (Isaiah 12:2). We never read about a situation where God calls us to Liberty, but leaves us hanging when we seek it. Rather, we read that “the LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of distress; He cares for those who trust in Him” (Nahum 1:7). In the Bible, those who trust in God alone to protect them, which negates any faith or allegiance to human government to do this for them, are always provided for in all things, which shows why a lack of faith in Liberty is a lack of faith in God.

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in Him. He is like a tree planted by the waters that sends out its roots toward the stream. It does not fear when the heat comes, and its leaves are always green. It does not worry in a year of drought, nor does it cease to produce fruit” (Jeremiah 17:7-8).

We are not told that those who trust in God alone, which necessarily means to avoid setting up or supporting systems of human government, thereby run the risks and dangers of being subjugated by men, but rather that “the LORD is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble” (Psalm 9:9). The psalmists always show an utmost belief that God is their only savior, and that those who trust in Him are not in need of men at all to protect them because they don’t have any enemies seeking to attack them like the statist societies of the world. Indeed, the only people who need to fear being ruled are those who lack faith in the Lord alone, don’t listen to His words, and seek salvation from men. 

“But if you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments…I will set my face against you, and you shall be struck down before your enemies. Those who hate you shall rule over you” (Leviticus 26:14-17).

Those men who oppress others in the world are not just mysterious forces of the world preying upon men who have no State to protect them. Nor are they just people who outgunned a population of people and conquered them by force alone. Rather, they are set up by sinners who lack faith in God and are then used by God to judge those people who do trust in human government as their lords and saviors, which is to expressly turn away from Him and invite judgment upon yourselves. Once we see that God is to allow state rulers to be a terror to the wicked works of the wicked-hearted men who set them up, we should then see that the only way to avoid enemies is precisely to seek God alone, knowing that He will send them upon an idolatrous and sinful people who lust after human rulers. There is not need to seek human rulers to protect us from other human rulers, knowing that this is the sin that gets us ruled in the first place. Far from statism being secure or liberty being dangerous, it is only when people abandon the Lord and His Liberty that they are then in danger of being ruled: 

“They forsook the Lord… So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies” (Judges 2:12-14). 

It is when a people disobey God and seek human protectors who call themselves “governors” and “presidents” and “legislators” that they are turned over to their enemies.

“Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against you…Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer” (Nehemiah 9:26-27). 

Does God fail to secure His Liberty?

The idea of a “dangerous liberty” is the idea that God screwed up when He had made the earth, the men who walk upon it, and the social laws that He has implanted into the social structure. This obviously is not the case. Men who trust in God alone to protect them in Liberty, rather than seek protection from men as the faithless people of the world do, can do so expecting nothing less than that God will be with them.

“But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it” (James 1:25).

God never commands a people to obey Him but leaves them hanging when it comes to obtaining peace and prosperity by doing so. Rather, He always tells us of the direct link between obeying Him, which means to have the Lord as our only King, and the real blessings of peace and prosperity that follow. “Blessed are all who fear the Lord, who walk in obedience to him” (Psalm 128:1). 

God never says that we should seek His Liberty but will have to starve and face dangers when we do so. He says He provides for us in this Liberty, and indeed that the only dangerous route for anyone hoping to be fed and protected is those who seek human kings to rule over them. The idea that we will face insecurity if we seek to obey God and live in Liberty is a worldly myth meant to train men to cling to worldly rulers as their saviors. It is those who trust in human government who face a dangerous slavery; those who seek God live in a peaceful liberty. 

Liberty through God 

The only people who believe that anarchism is “chaos” and dangerous are people who believe that human governors bring order and security. This is a lie from the devil to get you to buy into the lies of worldly kingdoms. Men are not in danger of invasion or being conquered when they abide in God, contrary to all those enemies of a free society who tell us that only States can keep us safe. On the contrary, only a people who trust in God and live freely according to His commands find this security. Political slavery isn’t secure at all, but open to enemies. Only Liberty and obedience to God assures it.

“If my people would only listen to me, if Israel would only follow my ways, how quickly I would subdue their enemies and turn my hand against their foes!…But you would be fed with the finest of wheat; with honey from the rock I would satisfy you” (Psalm 81:13-16).

It is not even that statists at least get “peace” and “security” for their enslavement, either. Protection and provision is found only in a free society, and we need not concede the statist’s myth, and even the famous quote repeated by those who choose the “dangerous liberty” option, that there is actually a trade off to be had. Those who seek God and obey His commands do not risk going with a “dangerous” option at all, but will actually find liberty. Again, “And I will walk in freedom, for I have sought Your precepts” (Psalm 119:45). Men do not take the risk of not finding food or security for trusting in God’s Liberty; this is a risk—rather it is a guarantee—only of going with the alleged “peaceful slavery” of statism and socialism. God says He provides everything a people need who abide in Him and reject human law systems. He says, “If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best of the land” (Isaiah 1:19) — not that He gives us freedom but leaves us to starve and live in danger. Far from facing danger, those who obey God and seek Liberty rather than the slavery of statism and socialism have all their needs met, and those who seek peace and protection in a state only find themselves enslaved without the “peaceful” part ever being true.

It is the statist road, which men mistakenly thought would be “peaceful,” where men might look back and realize that seeking Liberty is what would give them what they’re after. It the statist “society,” and all its consequent evils, where a people might realize how much they screwed up by not going with God and His Liberty. 

“If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your well-being like the waves of the sea” (Isaiah 48:18).

Conclusion

We must conclude that the dichotomy of “dangerous liberty” or “peaceful slavery” is a false one — especially when we see it in light of Jefferson’s meaning where it is the “liberty” of “constitutional republics” that is preferable and where we are merely comparing two different forms of enslaving human civil governments. Rather, the true dichotomy is between peaceful liberty and unsecure, statist slavery. Men can either choose to be ruled by God, who gives Liberty to those who seek Him, or they can be ruled by false gods who, though offering a false peace, only bring bondage.

But there is never an instance where choosing Liberty—in other words seeking the Godly path of social order—means to do without peace, prosperity, or security. Rather, God says, “Obey me, and I will be your God, and you will be my people. Do everything as I say, and all will be well” (Jeremiah 7:23)! God says that only blessings of peace, security, abundance of food, and everything a man and his family could ever need, await those who seek His ways. 

“If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God” (Deuteronomy 28:1-2). 

Nor is there an instance where choosing statism actually brings peace and security. These systems always degenerate into all the injustices and lawlessness and evils that men mistakenly believed they were avoiding by seeking security in them, and they do so as divine judgment against those who believed that God’s Liberty was dangerous and that He couldn’t be trusted to provide for those who seek His Kingdom.