Aldous Huxley said something similar. Here is his "iron law of sexuality": "As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase."
Source: http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/75326.html

Douglass' dictum is plausible, but nothing more than that. I submit that it becomes more plausible if it is elaborated as follows. "To educate a child (not "a man"!) is to teach him obedience. This is because freedom is responsibility, because responsibility implies obedience to one's self and because the capacity to obey is not inborn. Since only their parents have rightful authority over their offspring, it is the parents who must shoulder this task. By forcing (yes, forcing) their children to be obedient to *their*, external, authority, the parents prepare them for obedience to their *own*, internal, authority, and thus for individual freedom. If parents shy away from this task, as they have been indoctrinated to do for the past half century, their children will likely remain as dependent as they were at birth. They will remain slaves, first to their needs and their passions, later to their peers and to fashion, and whatever else prevails. And the public (!) schools will take it from there. They will mould them to become citizens of the New World Order, who are actually unquestioning, uncritical and unfree, but have been taught to believe themselves the opposite." In other words, if we want freedom rather than slavery, we should reclaim our educational responsibility as parents AND abolish the public schools. Knowing something about Frederick Douglass, however, I doubt very much if this is what he meant.

General Shoup is a hero alright and I think his insight does apply to the present situation. Hence my four stars. Yet he thought that revolutions "must be of the violent type [if] the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method," and there he was wrong. Morally, because the "haves" are perfectly within their rights if they refuse to share with the "have-nots". Pragmatically, because it is precisely the resolute refusal to share on the part of the "haves" that prevents revolutions from occurring. In other words, revolutions happen because the "haves" do NOT refuse to share with the "have-nots". The "haves" hope to preserve the peace by showing their good will. Alas, good will is something their revolutionary counterparts do not understand. They understand only weakness and strength. Hence they interpret any show of good will as a sign of weakness, and any show of weakness as an invitation to screw up demands. Violent revolution is what you get if this process goes on long enough. And then, of course, the Paradise on Earth: where everyone except the most ruthless or lucky revolutionaries is either a "have-not" or dead. Something tells me that General David M. Shoup might have agreed with this, after all.