By definition, liberty is the state of being free from the oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behavior or political views. But I believe otherwise- liberty is the act of being oneself; it is the freedom of our state of mind, our state of righteousness and following a path we feel is progressive.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "freedom of our state of mind" and "state of righteousness"? Freedom and righteousness can be very subjective terms. They mean different things to different people.Some concepts relate to existence in an imagined state of nature, and therefore define the active exercise of freedom and control essential to liberty in corresponding ways. Freedom and rules go hand in hand. Without freedom, we don't live; we merely exist in the Abaddon of slavery. Revolutions finally regulate the merciless slaughter of complete serfdom, ironically, using violence as its main weapon.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "imagined state of nature"? How far does this freedom go and how far would you be willing to retain this freedom? You address this in one of the following paragraphs but not sufficiently enough. Other questions to think about: Is freedom an illusion? How do you know you're not free? What are the signs?Rules are what bind us together. Regulation is what controls the extremities. Liberty is what frees us.
Could you please elaborate on how rules bind us, how regulation controls extremities, and how liberty frees us? You need to support your assertions with concrete examples.However, just like many other aspects of life, too much of liberty and freedom has its consequences.
Hypothetically, if the world were to have no rules, ranging from obeying the traffic signal down the street to the payment of taxes were to be dissolved; there would be several scenarios that could occur, some favorable and some vile.
In the first many months people would be fulfilling their dreams that were previously bounded by the chains of law and deemed illegal. Worst case scenario- there would be deaths too; there are quite a few who will kill for revenge, greed, or simply for the thrill of it.
You may want to combine these three into a single paragraph. Perhaps you could also list examples of dreams that are bounded by the chains of law. How did you make the distinction between favorable and vile acts? Getting revenge could be someone's dream. In this paragraph, you may need to refine your logic.In the later years, there would be chaos and pandemonium in the streets. People would be apprehensive to step out of their doorsteps, lest they get shot, or worse. The world would be plagued by barbaric murderers, assaulters and criminals; and no one to control them, no one to defend those who are powerless.
This paragraph raises an important question: What type of freedom are you referring to throughout your essay? Are you talking about religious freedom, social freedom, political freedom, and so on? So far it seems as if you're talking about freedom in general (i.e., "freedom of our state of mind" and "state of righteousness"); however, in reality, one could argue that there are many types of freedoms, some permissible and others not. Moreover, who gets to decide?To condense it all; liberty, when regulated, is a wave of fresh, sweet breeze- one which affectionately caresses our hair in the warmth of the spring. However, if overused, liberty can make our existence stormy and nebulous. Moreover, unceasing giving in and pampering of our vices will lead us to regret, or worse, egomaniacal tendencies. The importance of time will soon be neglected and forgotten. The very essence of humanity will drown in the murky depths of violence and greed and, beyond the shadow of doubt, fade into oblivion. The world will indeed become a dangerously unfortunate hell-hole to live in.
You don't explicitly mention anything about regulation in your introduction. Perhaps that's something you may want to take into consideration when you revise. In addition, your stance on the issue isn't clear. I get the feeling that you're for regulating "liberty," but in the body paragraphs of your essay you appear to be on the fence. If you're going to argue for regulating people's freedoms, you'll need to structure your essay in that way. This is only my suggestion. Perhaps other members of the forum feel differently.
Nonetheless, I like your writing style. You can poetically articulate your thoughts. You're emphatic in the way you communicate with your readers. However, you may want to take that into consideration as well, that is, the tone of your essay. Is it appropriate for the topic at hand? Should it be more concrete than abstract? Should it be more detached instead of personal? I hope I was able to help in some way.