>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"

>Think about it also from a consequence based perspective? Whether you agree with the rules or not, if the following of whatever the rule is, is more conventionalist than breaking it?

If I form a gang and make a set of rules and if you don't follow my rules my gang will steal your property, beat you up, kill your friends, kill you and rape your corpse in front of your family before they steal and kill them as well. Whether you agree or not, is it more conventionalist to break them?
 
>It's a matter of doing the cost vs benefit analysis for you as a freeman. 

The cost is your freedom, the benefit is slavery.

> In an ideal world we can change the rules but in many cases we can't and merely have to adapt our behavior to conform to the rules in order to avoid the negative consequence.

Do you change the rules of the gang? If a gang is more lenient, do you change their rules? Do you have any say over the rules that people make? Can you change the rules of my house? What about your neighborhood, if enough of you gather, can you change the house of those that don't? What if their rules are to rape and kill you if you trespass against them like that by forcing them, who would be the Attacker and who would be the Defender? Who would justice punish and who would justice find JUST? Tired of all the hypotheticals pointing out that not only can you not change rules that you didn't make to being with, but just as you cannot tell people what rules they can and can't make people aren't any more justified in forcing you than you are in forcing them. If you consider people unable to be free, you must consider yourself a complete pathetic inexcusable slave, there is no in between, you are either Free, or you are a Subject, a Slave, you are either your Master or you follow another master, ultimately it's not a degree of freedom but only a binary, either you are free or either you are enslaved. 


> Now if it reaches a point where you have a high probability of success at being able to change the rules, or if breaking the rules is more convenient, then these become favorable options too.

If you break some made up rules by a gang, does that mean anything? If I make up rules and you break them, does that mean anything? Can I say "you broke these rules, like it or not, where you agreed to them or not, and you owe me or you must pay"? Yes I can but people will look at my like a lunatic and laugh at me. It's no different if a gang does it, no matter how big the gang. 

>What is your opinion on the impact of surveillance, AI, social media, etc? These social media platforms can reshape social norms, morality, and laws, by renegotiating how people communicate, how people form friendships, etc.

It's always the people and not the tools that are important. If we had nothing but censored facebook a whole language would form in the face of the tyrants and code would be imbued into every word, and I wouldn't fault facebook for censoring, but I would applaud the individuals who don't argue that it's a matter of cost vs benefit, but a matter of being free or not. Are you a Free Woman, or are you a Citizen, you cannot be both. 

It's either LAWFUL, or JUST, or it's not. Law cannot compel performance, then it becomes slavery, there is no reason to limit what people can say, ever, words never hurt anyone, and there is no reason to tell people how to act, and neither you nor anyone is tasked with that kind of authority. Steer your own god damn ship and let everyone run amok on the rocks, they have free will and the sense of doing what they feel in their heart, and no Law will change that, such futility is embarrassingly stupid.

Feeling is a reaction to a stimuli.  There is no implication that thinking must be involved at all for feeling.  This does not exclude the possibility that thinking could occur somewhere down the line.  If you are shown a picture of dead child you will have an automatic reaction.  If I switch to a picture of a kitten snuggling with a puppy, once again you will have an automatic reaction.

The problem is that most of the weak-minded, non-analytical types get to the "feeling" and progress no further.  Lets take the famous example of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian boy dead on a beach whose photograph was flashed all around the world.  The resulting "outrage" inspired hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to vent their "feelings" and "demand" that an unlimited amount of "refugees" (as they were called) be allowed to flood the shores of Europe.  Here are the "facts" that were omitted from the story.  The boy was not "fleeing war", he was living safely in Turkey for quite a while.  His father was involved in people smuggling and was therefore responsible for his son's death. The father wanted to go for free dental treatment in Canada, not flee war.

Now what has happened?  Just 1.4% of migrants arriving in Italy in 2017 are "Syrian Refugees" and the monster percentage are economic migrants.  This is what happens when feelings trump facts.  Outrage is directed in an erroneous way.  

There are many other examples that I could have chosen.  However, I will conclude with a refutation of your first sentence.  Feeling is feeling.  Critical thinking using evidence and facts is something else altogether.