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

"Yet, it fails to address the true issues that lead to the necessity of restraining freedoms on many occasions." Which are? "It is often needed to protect people from others." 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. "Some restraints need to be applied in order to prevent someone from harming others, and infringing on those peoples freedoms." Only in certain situations which goverment cultivates to maintain power. Another option would be to empower people to protect themselves and encourage them to protect others. Absolute laws can easily be replace with incentives and guidelines. (but that is not the point of this debate) "The bed straps are a successful solution." 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. "It does not seem..." Uhhh, prevention of harm is not an aid to health? "By showing just one viable problem that could arise which is solved with less freedom as opposed to more freedom, your conclusion is nullified." That would only be true if there were only one solution to every problem. This is not the case. And the better solution will always come with more freedom. Because more freedom is inherently better. It's self evident to the point of near circularity. "The spirit of the law does not necessarily become lost over time." 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. "Some things are always the same." 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. "It may also outlaw as many or more unviable solutions. By removing law in order to allow new viable options, you would also allow an innumerable amount of unviable, unmoral options." 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? "But, in the process only more problems will be spawned by all the people in the world who would live to take advantage of their new freedoms.." You're taking personal responsibility and self reliance totally out of the picture. Are humans the children of goverment 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. Can you say with a straight face that exploitation cannot be conducted legally and that the bets solution is more laws outlawing the abuse of law? What about those new laws, should we make a law against exploiting the new law? You end up with infinite law, and infinite law means 0 freedom on paper. Which makes all action potentially illegal. Which is kind of where we are now in an era of being being jailed for growing plants, and tazed in school libraries. Using the law to exploit is so ubiquitous that the evil lawyer is a cultural cliche. Law is superfluous. It is a tool to control people for the preservation of the state, nothing more. As I said in the comments, and you may choose to parrot his arguments if you like, laws are not in place to protect people, they are there to protect commerce and infrastructure. Any given law can be shown to be a protection of the system rather than of a person. Freedoms solve personal problems, and create state problems, because the state depends on our lack of freedom. Therefor for any given problem the better solution will be additional freedom. This is the point of technology. Technology by definition adds freedoms. Fire for example gave us the freedom to turn wood into heat and safety. All technology is this way. More freedom is generally better for the species and the individual. But usually it's bad for the emergent systems built from us, namely government, religion, corporation. Hence, Law and Sin.