Just because it is a famous quote doesn't make it useful let alone inspirational. I don't see any insight into human nature here at all. It is just another command from a person in authority. It is like so many quotes from people who are merely famous; a glittering generality, no better than the Fascist dictum "ask not what your country can do bla bla etc. etc.

All that is true. Except Nelson left off the list the largest group of people who are exceptions . . . CRIMINALS. No criminal has to abide by that law.

Jury nullification is what this quote is all about. The government employees try to convince jurors that their ONLY job is to judge whether the defendant is lying or not. We are mere lie detectors. The reason they make the effort to remove your ability to judge the law is so they don't have to drag out the case with a defense of the law in addition to the trial itself. They're lazy. That's all.

This quote would be very powerful and famous if it wasn't diluted by such a weak second sentence. The second sentence barely follows from the first. It's not untrue, it's just weak and distracts because it is so difficult to connect to the first. I'd recommend the editors of this website drop the second sentence.

This aphorism may be the clearest, the most well written summary of the most important problem with government. Wow. I think it would be even more powerful if the last sentence was removed. It is not wrong, it just makes the reader wonder if government is that smart. That question distracts from the impact of the main point. Walt

I think it is confusing. What value is there in constraining important communication to rhyme and meter? If you want music, hum a tune. After struggling with the puzzle that is this poem, I for one come away liking poetry even less than before. Saying as much as possible with few words is also of no value. The assumption in the missing words is that you will get it. But you will, only if you are of the same culture as the poet. Poems are for people who like puzzles, not people who like philosophy. What poet Byron is saying here is that freedom is a continuing battle and it is the battle, not the freedom, that is handed down from father to son. And even though there's some confusion in this battle it will eventually be obtained. What crap. If it didn't have the pedigree of poetry, it would be discarded in a minute. Why would it eventually be won? Why would the son take up the battle. Noble sentiments, not an observation of human nature. My observation of human nature on this subject is that through battle, you just exchange one tyrant for another. Unlike war, when a revolution is over, the enemy is still with you and you must repress him with as much bloodshed as was done in the revolution. The American revolution was not a revolution. It was the throwing out of an occupying force. When the fighting was over. They left.

I'm surprised no one commented on Adam's placing property rights above the law of God. I will. Property rights is a covenant between people. It is entirely possible to have full agreement on such a thing. Whereas the law of God can only be heard through a human or through tribes of humans and because of that, there will sometimes be disagreement. The present belief on the part of liberals and even atheist liberals in "fairness" is really as spirit-like as any belief in God. (How can people agree on what's fair?) This notion of fairness being more sacred than property rights should be more terrible to us today than the concern John Adams had for any specific religion being more sacred than property rights. The reason we should worry is because fairness is associated with non-religious people who would have you believe that fairness is a natural phenomenon. Liberals would like to turn fairness into an inalienable right administered by a priesthood.