If laws were meant to be broken, they would never exist, and we would live in primitive communities always experiencing individual and tribal conflicts since groups aren't built without any kind of rule. Nowadays they like to talk negatively about the rules, family conservatism, social values and collective respect which is supposedly incorporated into the education of youth society, accusing that factors are oppressive based ideas.
Rules are needed precisely to ensure a continuous evolution of wisdom, economy, good quality of social life and also for the safety of everyone's rights. The human being is a rational animal which still contains considerably primate bases. Even today, men and women have basic needs such as to relate sexually, this being one of the most primitive acts that no matter how modernized the way it is done, it is this will that makes us basic beings, this imprisonment of wills and addictions. This kind of wills is what actually makes Humans not to extinguish, but yet evolve and adapt. However, generally, this comes with secondary effects like aggressiveness, greed, and addiction. Like those examples, there are several others including those, that need to be overseen by higher authority in order to ensure the life of each one of us. It is only a way of protecting ourselves, not a form of oppression. We should not give this responsibility to individuals, the very "wolves" who will make the mistake. Encouraging the freedom of the wrong acts is a danger to the freedom of the neighbor, therefore state imposes restrictions through laws and punishments because man is primitive in many of his behaviors.
Liberalism ignores those natural facts, and in practice becomes a "monkeying around" as those who test it deceive themselves on its precipice. By releasing and letting them act as they wish, they will repeat the feat, since they haven't got a negative but a passive response. You can only feel free when your neighbor respects your freedom and the freedom of your neighbor is respected by you. It is impossible to feel freedom being that one is running over the other since he will naturally give a negative retribution if possible. Thus there is a government that discusses laws, to be respected by the citizens living in that nation, and these were guaranteed by the authorities of the same.
My conclusion on this is that both extremes are quite dangerous and hypocritical if exaggerated and badly managed. We should be skeptic but at the same time we should ponderate and be mediators while arguing with someone who doesn't share the same opinions of us. For this kind of mediation and knowing the fact that libertines naturally exist, authoritarianism should also exist, but not on its extremist form and the government should always be regulated in order to avoid corruption or the true oppression.
