Freedom and morality

We need to reflect once again on John Adams’ observation that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Why is that true? It's true because apart from a standard for what is right and wrong, the resulting "freedom" allows rebellious human nature to take control and chaos is the predictable result. Religion provides people with a set of rights and wrongs and if this moral code is removed there remains no particular reason for the individual to live in harmony with others.
       In a morality free world nothing can be wrong – it's in the definition! If your neighbor decides to move his fence onto your property, there's no reason why he shouldn't. The fence has been moved, you've lost land, but, since nothing is wrong, how could you argue that this was? I'm reminded of the story of an old VW van covered with stickers; one on the rear said, "If it feels good, do it." As it cruised along, a shiny new BMW pulled up behind wanting to pass. Reading the sign, the driver of the “Bimmer” pushed the van off the road. The irate occupant of the  van got out to protest, but found it difficult to deny that the other had the right to do whatever felt good to him. Gotta stick by your slogans!
       At this point I'm not claiming that one set of responsibilities is necessarily better than another. All I'm saying is that apart from some standard, society cannot exist as such. What normally happens when a group of people moves away from regulation is that whoever has the power takes control. Now a standard does exist – the will of the most powerful. So, in fact, some sort of "morality" does exists. The crucial question is what sort of control is best? Which method of assuring the best for everyone has proven itself in history? The two extremes are absolute dictatorship at one extremity and the genuine freedom of social-concern at the other.
       What Adams is saying is that apart from the control provided by an inner morality there is no way for freedom to flourish in a social setting. Our laws are simply secular expressions of our morality. We observe the speed limit because we don't want to endanger either ourselves or someone else. That people ought not drive faster than such and such a speed isn't an arbitrary decision. It's the result of a moral sense that driving too fast is wrong. Remove the moral element and freedom evaporates. True freedom is the opportunity to do what is right.