We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

Though I can not quote Wikipedia on the big bang theory, I can attempt to highlight the ideas of some key philosophers. Before I get started I would like to base the reason why I am using the work of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Pope Leo XIII. These men have three very different ideas on how a society and government is and must be run. Though they all differ greatly, they focus on the ideal that in order to protect our natural rights, we must give up some of our natural rights. First I'll talk about John Locke, who's work inspired Thomas Jefferson while he was forming the United States of America. He believed that in a natural society free of government, people will be 99.8% good. This meant that a large group of the population would have the land that they needed and nothing more. More or less, it would be a happy society where the people would have the things they needed to live with little to no excess. The other .2% is why Locke believed we needed a government. He felt that the small portion of society would be naturally evil and would upset the way of life for others. He firmly believed that all men and women had the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He also believed that although many people would be good and respect these rights, others would be out there to take these rights away. In order to protect the life, liberty, and property of the society, a government must be put in place that can offer such said protection. In his government, the people would give up a few of there rights in order to protect their natural rights. For example a person gives up the right to go how fast they want on the highway, but in return their life is safer and more protected. Thomas Hobbes had a more sadistic look on society. He felt that all people were naturally evil and thus would do anything they wanted. A point strongly ehpmisied in his writting was that no matter what, men will do anything in their power to survive. This is why he called for a government that would be much more strict then Locke's. In his government the people would give up almost every single right except for one. The right to life. As long as they did what the government said to do, their lives were protected. Finally we reach Pope Leo XIII. In his society all people were simply blank slates. They had the morals that god instilled in them, but what they did with them was up to the individual. His ideals for the government were very religious when compared to the previous two philosophers. He felt that the government must give up some rights in order to empower the government and in return would recieve the protection of their natural rights. The governments only job was to protect the immortal souls of the citizens by offering them opportunities to only make the right choice. Alright, now its time to get to the argument at hand. My opponent has talked about the fact that the "freedom of you and I" can not be limited by any force. The simple truth is that this statement is false. In every government we have now, we give up some freedoms to keep our greatest freedom, that of life. Countries that have all their freedoms are countries of anarchy. Such a system of government has never worked in the history of this planet. Going back to the ideals of the philosophers, in anything but a perfect society, we can not maintain all of our freedoms individually. You can attempt to protect your freedom of life, but if you go to sleep and a person who wants to take that freedom comes and kills you, that freedom is taken from you. It is with that i debate that we need a system of limitations in order to protect our freedoms. It is also my belief that this system of limitations is best described as a government.