"The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less."

"False dichotomy. Law is merely one abstract way in which people can protect themselves and others. You imply that without law there can be no protection, this is not the case." I suppose I could see how you may see that I implied that no law and protection are mutually exclusive -- but I believe you are very much stretching this one statement. Here is what I said: "It [law] is often needed to protect people from others." I did not say there is no protection without law, but as we are using the word 'protect', I am saying that law often aids in protection of people, and is often needed to provide this protection. I'll give an example. There are plenty of examples of threatening and stalking that lead to an often very helpful and sometimes completely necessary solution -- and it is found in the law. Restraining orders, for instance, come into play many times and may help infinitely to prevent and stop the harm that one person may be causing or will continue to cause to another. "Only in certain situations which government cultivates to maintain power." So, you agree that at least sometimes restraints need to be applied to prevent the harming of people. But, you think that the government creates these situations to maintain power? I do not see the connection -- I'll have to ask you to elaborate how this works. It seems you admit law can and does produce successful solutions. "But certainly not the only viable one. The trick is to find a situation where a person can be safely granted his freedom. The taking of freedom should be the last resort, not the first. Law applies to all, from the cradle. That makes it a first response." You are stating that problems can allow multiple solutions, yet this is not what your topic title portrays. "The successful solution to every problem we ever face will always be MORE freedom, not less." is the title, I fail to see the word 'best' before successful in your sentence. By just using 'The', it appears that you claim only one solution accompanies every problem, because the it must allow the most freedom in order to be a solution. Anyways, your topic title is a little misleading. I think that, "The best solution to every problem we ever face will always allow more freedom, not less", might serve what seems to be your argument more coherently. Or, am I misinterpreting your collection of statements on this front? I'd like to know your view about my understanding here, and clear this up better. The same problem comes up again later in your second round reply. "Uhhh, prevention of harm is not an aid to health?" I was interpreting your statement in a bit of a different way when I first read it. It seemed to me that you were implying the 'improvement' of the patient's health, not 'aid' to it. Improvement, would fall on the side of healing a sick patient back to their normal health. Aid does not necessarily imply improvement, but a mere help to it. Preventing harm, does indeed, aid health, but it does not improve it from the original state before hand. Allow me to get to my point. You you were stating this: "The idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap is obviously insane." If by help you solely mean help, and not any greater achievement, I believe that the idea that we can help a patient's health by continuously adding various forms of bed strap (in order to prevent harm) is not at all insane. You have even stated yourself applying bedstraps prevent harm and can even be used as successful solutions. So, unless you consider something that you claim to be fact as something that is 'obviously insane' -- at which point this debate has a reached a near dead end -- you have some explaining to do for these apparent contradictions. "That still grants that it occurs in the majority of cases. Which means the chance is over half, which means that over time you'll approach infinite corruption." It does not necessarily grant it in the majority of cases either, but if you'd like to assume that there isn't much preventing it. Infinite corruption will not be approached simply because more than half of laws may lose their spirit over time (although we've already disputed the truth of even this being true). Let us assume from this day forward, no new laws will be created, and none of them at all will be adapted. From the laws we have now, only a certain amount of them have even a realistic chance of their 'spirit' being 'corrupted' (things like murder are likely to stay the same), and that is as far as it will possibly go. The corruption level has potential of increase, and probable increase, but it will near nowhere near infinity -- and that is assuming the worst possible conditions -- unless laws still being created may be worse, in which case, unless laws start becoming corrupt much more immediately than before, and a higher percentage of laws become subject to corruption in the first place, the corruption level is still held at bay. From here I'll go back to something you said earlier that seems to have come up again. "The spirit is lost in time and situations change, laws by their nature resist adaptation, because they are modeled after physical law, which does not adapt at all." Law does indeed adapt, perhaps not at the pace you would prefer, but it does. Laws and guidelines are amended consistently over time. Reference the Constitution for one easy example. "Not true, change is the only constant beyond the physical laws themselves. This is a fundamental and rationally undeniable paradox of our existence. One of many." This may be true, but it does not render the statement, "Some things are always the same", to be false in it of itself. Unless the human race has a future of immortality somewhere in the future, then the outlaw of murder is extremely likely to continue in its enforcement as long as order in the form of some type of government is in session. This is just a minor example of something that should easily disallow the notion that everything changes and will change. As long as you believe the human race does not have immortality in its future, in which case I can't make the argument it's extremely likely some things are always the same to you on this front. "So then law becomes a wash? At which point it neither helps nor hurts to have it? Which is cheaper codifying practicing and enforcing law or simply not having it?" It does not become a wish. In my opinion, which I hold as an almost absolute fact, most laws eliminate much more unnecessary, unhelpful, unviable, distasteful, immoral, and unethical options than they prevent necessary, helpful, viable, moral, and ethical options. This would mean that laws are not a wash, but indeed helpful, useful, and very often successful. The question of what is cheaper eliminates all other variables -- even if you assume that law is a wash in terms of its use and harm -- the answer to what is cheaper leaves out too many necessary values to be helpful as is. "You're taking personal responsibility and self reliance totally out of the picture. Are humans the children of government to be sculpted, schooled, scolded, and looked after for all time? Government is our tool, not the other way around. Law's function by your reasoning seems to be to enforce ethics." I'm not taking it out of the picture. Some people will simply not be responsible without the restraining guidelines (along with threat of punishment) in place. Not only on the large scale view of law as a whole via government, but also on small scales that are more tangibly viewed in everyday life. "Law is superfluous. It is a tool to control people for the preservation of the state, nothing more." Law offers protection, guidelines, aid, and successful solutions -- it is not all superfluous. In your next round please provide a successful solution provided by the use of more freedom-Limit