>Liberty is what sailors get when they dock. It usually involves boozing, fighting, and fucking. Freedom is what you were looking for I believe.

That point you didn't address, is there a reason for that? It's as true and correct now as it was when I first said it, and it's poignant indeed.

>Moderation is necessary for a conversation involving many people.

Assertion without logic or fact/example to validate or substantiate it. 

>Regulation is necessary for markets involving many competing interests.

Again, another assertion lacking any modicum of substance.|

>Even in families, even in 1 on 1 relationships, there are rules.

Equally this is just a statement seeking to further the above assertions, even in despotic governments there's rules and regulations, even on a plantation there's a master and there's slaves and the rules and regulations and laws. 

>So there always are laws, guiidelines, rules, etc.

And still not one ilk of reasoning, no why or how to substantiate the insidious thought that even slaves have rules.

>Having the rules in writing in my opinion is far superior than having then unwritten.

Yes, and its of immense importance for those that wish to keep records, see, I gave a reason, not an opinion.

>Unwritten rules get enforced just as hard if not harder than the written rules.

And still no reason why this is even brought up let alone proof or logic to back up what amounts to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

> Unwritten laws also don't even give you the chance to learn what the rules are which you are being judged by.

We are deep into the conversation without any substance and discussing the false premise that has been promulgated from the get go.

>Considering that you cannot know how someone will react to something you say before you say it, if you have too few constraints on what you can say then your chance of upsetting a bunch of people rises. 

Considering this the first ilk of reasoning on the above assertion let's examine and explore it:

The premise is that rules exist because you cannot know how someone will react to something you say.

We weren't discussing why rules exist and how they come to be so, I stated specifically: 

*As for the rule of law vs regulations, what's the difference? One is as illegitimate as the other when it comes to Free Men.*

It's still illegitimate to ORDER or FORCE people to follow your RULES or LAWS or REGULATIONS, it goes counter to FREE WILL and the essence of law which is that it MUST-NOT-COMPEL-PERFORMANCE.

That is the singular principle of law. It doesn't matter if you justify it as "for my benefit" or "for the benefit of others" you simply have to resolve What Illegitimacy am I speaking of and is it true that both Rule Of Law or Regulations are equally illegitimate when it comes to Free Men. Justifying immorality is illegitimate, no matter how big the gang is that creates the rules, or if the rules are written or not. The only discussion is that they don't apply to free men and women.


>So how would you solve this without adding constraints and in effect reducing some liberty?

It's not yours to solve, who decreed you that you are to impose and regulate what people say? Exactly.

>It's not ideal at all, but it's about maintaining harmony, quality of life, and preventing "mob justice" from being the ultimate arbitrator of disputes.

Yeah, we will just have to take your apologetic nonsense as not directly excusing the immorality of Forcing people and calling Freedom, liberty.

You have yet to justify or substantiate why and how Rule of Law or Regulations is applicable to free men and women everywhere. Somehow you believe to be appointed the arbiter and the executor of this scheme where you're limiting what people can say because you say I cannot know how someone will react to what I say, as if that makes any sense what so ever, as if it's anyone's business to decree such things or somehow nobody told you that PEOPLE-WILL-DO-AS-THEY-WISH, because criminals exist in spite of laws as they don't observe or adhere to them so essentially laws are meaningless times 1 and then people don't need laws to tell them how to act so essentially laws are meaningless times 2.


"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

Justice happens simply by the Golden Rule. That is Justice, all else is just the "appearance of justice". 

Go to http://annavonreitz.com/ and in the search box type in (with quotes where shown):

"Appearance of Justice"
Citizen or Free Man
Liberty vs Freedom
"Rule of Law"
"Compel Performance"