They are not like the rest of us because they are rich and/or powerful, and so when they urge Demos to break the moral law in the interest of some specious liberation they are really bringing about his enslavement.

Why? Because the moral law is the only thing that protects the poor. Because Demos is neither rich nor powerful. The only protection he has against the predations of the rich and powerful is the law, which is to say the moral law and the positive one based on it. If he liberated himself from the moral law, he creates a society in which desire is the only measure of right and wrong. But a world like this, no matter what Demos thinks, is not democratic because in the absence of moral order, the desires of the rich and powerful will always triumph over the desires of the weak and the poor. The lesson of Roe v. Wade is quite simple: The desires of the powerful are more important than the life of the weak. The same applies to the political world at large. A world liberated from morals is a world in which the rich get to do whatever they want.

So Demos got it wrong because he failed to understand that a world without morals is a radically two-tiered universe, power and wealth being the main distinction between these two groups. Demos is seduced into supporting sexual liberation with the promise that he can now do whatever he wants. This is followed by a momentary sense of intoxication, which is followed by a period of acting out his fantasies, which is followed by another more sobering thought: If I can do anything I want to them, Demos suddenly realizes, they can do anything they want to me. In that thought, we begin to understand why horror is always the natural consequence of sexual liberation.

The general anarchy which sexual liberation brings about is a function of power. In the absence of morals, the rich will get away with murder because their desires are more powerful, and power in this context becomes the only measure of right and wrong. Either might makes right, or we are all bound by the terms of a moral order which is not of our making. There is no third alternative. If Demos abandons the moral order, he is ipso facto guaranteeing his subjugation because Demos is ipso facto neither rich nor powerful, simply by the fact that he is Demos. This is how sexual liberation functions as a form of political control, a principle which was demonstrated in graphic detail during the second Clinton Administration.

Demos, after watching television all these years, thinks that he belongs to the same class as the people who rule over him. He thinks he has the same prerogatives. But that is not the case. A world in which the ruler is rewarded for lying is a world in which his subjects can be punished for telling the truth. This is the lesson which Linda Tripp had to learn the hard way. The only protection the poor will ever have on this earth is the moral law, enculturated as part of the positive law. The only way a nation can guarantee rights is in light of that moral law, and any nation which subverts that moral order can only propose force, which is the rule of the rich and the powerful, as its substitute. (p. 604)