Let Freedom Ring
How economic inequality threatens individual liberty, undermines truly free markets, and betrays our country's founding principles.
If you’ve ever visited the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park, you’ve likely read its timeless inscription: “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.”1 A true icon of liberty and our nation’s founding ideals, no one can doubt its significance in our history. Yet, what is often less discussed is the full text of its inscription, and how it relates to what our country’s Founders viewed as one of the gravest threats to liberty: economic inequality.
First, where does this inscription originate from? According to the National Park Service, “The Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Bible (King James version)… This verse refers to the ‘Jubilee’, or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves every 50 years.”2 The precise Bible verse referenced is Leviticus 25:10, which proclaimed in its entirety:
“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”3
—Leviticus 25:10
The Vatican’s official website expands upon the importance of the Jubilee in the Bible:
“The believer may not tolerate the forms and the duration of a life of slavery, even as it was practiced by other peoples. Just so it is not tolerable that, because of debt or poverty, a family or a father be deprived of his land forever, since the land comes from God and is a fruitful gift for man.”4
That’s right. The Liberty Bell, perhaps the greatest symbol of America’s independence, bears an inscription from the Bible that calls for social and economic liberation. These are the founding ideals of our nation—too often overlooked by those who most loudly claim to be liberty’s staunchest defenders. Of course, the Founders did not fulfill liberation for the enslaved, despite slavery standing as an obvious moral contradiction to their own ideals. Abraham Lincoln would later confront this moral contradiction in his 1859 address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, where he asserted that slavery was incompatible with America’s founding ideals of individual liberty and economic justice. Still, the Founders understood that true liberty could not endure in an economic system designed to serve the elites rather than the people.
Debt as a threat to individual liberty
Personal debt is quite possibly the largest burden facing Americans today. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, household debt hit $18.20 trillion in the first quarter of 2025.5 This includes $1.18 trillion in credit card balances, $1.64 trillion in auto loan balances, and $1.63 trillion in student loan balances.6 Chances are, you, the reader, are carrying some form of personal debt—maybe a credit card balance, a student loan payment, or the stress of both. But what if I told you the Founders themselves feared exactly what many are experiencing today: that economic elites would infiltrate government not to serve the people, but to profit from the very debt now crushing millions of Americans? Often, we see these very economic elites invoke the words of figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith. These elites often quote them on topics related to free markets, yet do so strictly in defense of a market that exclusively serves corporate and special interests. In reality, both Jefferson and Smith spoke of debt as a threat to the masses, not the corporate elites who constitute the very few.
Jefferson himself stated, “I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”7 He also emphasized that “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”8 Jefferson understood that a lifetime of debt would result in the majority of society laboring endlessly to pay it off. And he was correct in this assessment—millions of Americans today remain trapped under crushing student loan debt, credit card bills, and other financial burdens, while private interests continue to profit handsomely. He saw this as a fundamental threat to liberty, though Jefferson was clearly selective in this belief, as he personally benefited from the very system of slavery (which, as noted earlier, Abraham Lincoln criticized in 1859 as fundamentally both anti-liberty and anti-labor).
Jefferson’s words are often selectively used by the elite class to criticize government spending in services that promote the common good. And while Jefferson certainly warned of excessive federal spending, his concerns were with how such debt would negatively impact independent farmers—specifically, family farms that performed their own labor, unlike the plantation class, which depended upon slavery—for the benefit of the elite class. He warned of a government that was beholden to the elite class (even though Jefferson himself was part of, and profited from, the wealthy plantation class). Compare this to today, when the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is projected to cause our debt to reach 130% of GDP if made permanent by the Senate, primarily due to its provisions regarding tax cuts for the ultra wealthy.9 All this, while gutting key programs that benefit independent farmers and exacerbating economic inequality.10
And, as our national government burdens the public with debt to service the billionaire class, this same corporate class is precisely responsible for the excessive amount of personal debt American households struggle with. As the U.S. economy became financialized from the 1980s onward, wages stagnated and Americans have become increasingly reliant on credit to get by.
“As real worker wages have stagnated, the cost of living has not. In order to bridge this gap the average person relies increasingly on credit. In 1983 the financial sector accounted for 15% of domestic corporate profits. By 2013 that share had risen to 30%. The over-reliance on private credit only benefits those that profit from margin fees and interest. Simultaneously, low-paid wage individuals fall into a dependency upon these lending institutions. That is neither freedom nor liberty.”11
Thus, we see how our current government is promoting an agenda that promotes an elite-ruled market, not a true free market. The wage laborer, the independent farmer, and the middle-class college student all bear the burden of debt, even as the corporate class profits tremendously. And while this corporate class often invokes the words of economic thinkers like Adam Smith to justify their actions, it was Smith himself who warned against the very economic exploitation these elites practice today.
Adam Smith’s warning
“The interest of the [business class], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacturers, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public… The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution... It comes from an order of men… who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.”
—Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI
Adam Smith is often hailed as the father of modern capitalism, and corporate interests frequently invoke his words to justify their vision of a “free market.” Yet Smith’s actual vision of a free market stands in sharp contrast to the practices of the corporate elite who currently dominate our government. Yes, Smith believed in a free market, but in a true free market. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explicitly warned of exploitive private interests. He warned of merchants whose private interests infiltrated government, distorting laws and undermining the very spirit of a truly free market. Smith also understood the threats of monopoly power and big business, contrary to what laissez-faire absolutists may say. Though proponents of the elite class, particularly corporate politicians currently in Congress, claim to follow The Wealth of Nations, they have repeatedly caved to the interests of those who seek to deceive and oppress the public.
“In countries where interest is permitted, the law, in order to prevent the extortion of usury, generally fixes the highest rate which can be taken without incurring a penalty.”
—Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter IV
Smith, like Jefferson, also warned of how debt could be weaponized by the elites at the expense of the people. He advocated for interest rate caps to prevent the predatory practices of loan companies that continue to undermine our economic freedom today. He supported reasonable laws limiting usury—laws that capped interest rates at a level neither too low to stifle lending nor too high to permit exploitation. As University of California, Irvine banking law professor Mehrsa Baradaran explains:
“Smith recognized that there was a distinction between market capitalism and the financialization of markets, creating complex financial products and prioritizing financial profit over a productive economy. Market capitalism was defined by investments toward production in the ‘real economy’—[such as] the building of railroads… Financialization involves making bets on markets… unproductive activities because all profits stay within finance… In short, as Smith saw as early as 1776, not all debts were socially or economically productive, and those that weren’t shouldn’t be allowed.”12
Perhaps the clearest example of how financialization fostered socially and economically unproductive practices is the 2008 financial crisis. This meltdown occurred when financial institutions prioritized short-term profits through predatory subprime mortgage lending, ultimately triggering a collapse that required a taxpayer-funded bailout. However, to avoid getting into another recap of The Big Short, I will simply link you to my piece from February which dove into this topic further. Additionally, I would encourage you to check out my article detailing how the Clinton administration signed off on a key piece of banking legislation that set the stage for the crisis, a prime example of policy that was heavily influenced by deceptive private interests.
Before neoliberal economic policies were ushered in, limits on usury protected individuals from loan sharks and predatory lenders. That changed when Milton Friedman and other neoliberal economists led the charge against usury laws, believing that “…usury laws were a prime example of government overreach and a drag on the economy.”13 Friedman stated in one 1970 Newsweek column:
“I know of no economist of any standing from [Smith’s time] to this who has favored a legal limit on the rate of interest that borrowers could pay or lenders receive—though there must have been some.”14
Yet Friedman clearly overlooked the writings of Adam Smith, who explicitly supported limitations on interest rates to prevent speculative and reckless lending. That Friedman—an economist who often invoked Smith’s legacy—ignored this fundamental position raises serious questions about his commitment to a truly free market. Rather than advocating for a genuinely competitive economy, Friedman’s vision often aligned with the interests of large private capital, enabling a system where corporate actors, not the public, could only succeed. This is because Friedman, like many selective interpreters of Smith, championed a so-called free market that was only for big business. That is not a true free market, nor is it what Adam Smith believed in.
Thus, if we are to have a true free market, there must be limits on the influence of big business within government. An economy and government dominated by corrupt elites not only defies our nation’s founding principles but also contradicts the vision of a truly free market championed by thinkers like Adam Smith. Unfortunately, as our government enacts one of the most economically regressive budget bills in decades on the very anniversary of our independence, we are reminded once again just how far our leaders have strayed from the true principles of liberty.
And, as inequality deepens and demagogues grow more powerful, Benjamin Franklin’s old warning echoes louder still:
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/stories-libertybell.htm
Ibid.
https://www.bible.com/bible/1/LEV.25.10-11
https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-78_en.html
https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc
Ibid.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/
Ibid.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-obbba-charts
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-beautiful-bill-house-tax-trump/
Cocozzelli, F. L. (2022). Commissar Conservatives: How Laissez-faire Libertarianism is Disturbingly Similar to Communism. Progressive Works Publishing, LLC, 144.
Mehrsa Baradaran, The Quiet Coup: Neoliberalism and the Looting of America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2024), 197.
Mehrsa Baradaran, The Quiet Coup: Neoliberalism and the Looting of America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2024), 198.
https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214054/full#:~:text=I%20know%20of%20no%20economist,doubt%20that%20there%20are%20any.