Freedom and Restriction

In contemporary society which is increasingly depended on legal regulations, rights of man frequently generate a great deal of heated debate, with human rights activists maintaining that legal norm should be abolished in order to lead people to seek greater freedom, whilst opponents claim that if laws and rules were to be repealed, the effects would be catastrophic. As far as I am concerned, laws or rules themselves are not the best way or only way to solve the conflicts between individual desire and collective interest.





Human rights extremists adhere to the opinion that laws or rules are preventing human beings from enjoying their freedom. They argue that when they are misused by governments, legal restrictions become an instrument used to misinform society and maintain power. Under this circumstance, individuals can not fulfill their potential to bring about progress for the entire society owing to the fact that some repressive regime enacts laws served to control its people.



On the contrary, for those who obey laws strictly, disciplines can ensure to deter criminal acts. Without monitoring and supervision of legal procedures, moral corruption which is considered offensive or harmful to prevailing custom is prone to emerge into the society. Hence, it is unquestionable that stringent measures should be taken by the governments to cope with the increasing criminal issues.



It is true that laws and rules are dispensable to govern the whole nation; however, they are unlikely the most effective way to deal with all the problems. In fact, all the social problems, to some extent, raise form the abusive behavior of individuals. That is, without consciousness, they are easily to make uninformed choices about what they should do or should not do for the society. Family values and social ethics, therefore, is the key to the problem. Take China as an example, with the traditional values of civility, moderation and family,...