"Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, even though they might deny such a preference."
------正文------
In human history, people have never ceased their attempts to pursue freedom, even at the cost of lives. A good example is Spartacus, a slave and wrestler, who led one of the most famous uprisings in history and finally died for his dream of liberty. Each one prefers to do whatever they want, but finite resources on the earth determine the impossibility of absolutely free choice. The desire for freedom springs from human nature though, in fact, there exists no complete freedom.
On the one hand, absolute freedom not only weakens freedom but also amounts to no freedom at times. If all people behave in any ways they like beyond laws and regulations, which seem to limit people's power and freedom, the society would in chaos. On the surface, people seem to have more rights to make fully free choice. However, since profits of every side is inevitable to conflict with one another and in collisions, the most powerful would have the final say, then most people with less power would even lose their vested rights as citizens instead of attaining more privileges. Then our society would then go backward to the uncivilized state. In this way, freedom is best preserved only when it is to some degree constrained
On the other hand, proper and reasonable restrictions make the society operate orderly and smoothly. Obviously, restrictions like laws and regulations can make people to make careful considerations before taking an action because the rules stipulate what people should do, what they should not and what punishment they will have to undertake if they breach these limits. Then with this limitation, each one would not take rash actions from his/her own interest and consider little consequence, because he/she has to worry about the subsequent responsibility. If only all people in their own place obey relevant rules and do what they should do, the society would keep in order. And only in a steady and just environment can each one exert most his/her abilities and thus assure each individual's interest.
Sometimes completely free rein makes people feel puzzled when they have so many opportunities to choose. Take children as an instance, in fact, due to their immature minds and insufficient knowledge, they cannot make reasonable choice on most occasions, such as which food is more nutrient and good for their growth or which program is fit for them to watch, etc. Consequently, without instructions and education from parents and schools, they are very likely to choose the deleterious ones and thus be misled. Moreover, even as an adult, one is not able to do everything they are desirous to because there are no such omnipotent persons on the earth except in the myths. That is, our limited abilities and life spans determined that we have relatively restricted freedom when making a choice.
To sum up, not only the requirements from outer environment but also the inner limitations of human beings themselves contribute to the conclusion that there in no absolute freedom in the world, even if it is human timeless dream and goal.作者: 花之颜色 时间: 2004-12-28 12:51:01
"Most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice, even though they might deny such a preference."
------正文------
C=comments, D=delete, A=add, R=replace
In human history, people have never ceased their attempts to pursue freedom, even at the cost of lives.(C: good) A good example is Spartacus, (A: who is) a slave and wrestler, who led(R: leading) one of the most famous uprisings in history and finally died for his dream of liberty. Each(R: every) one prefers to do whatever they want, but finite resources on the earth determine the impossibility of absolutely free choice(R: which is however constrained by the finite resources on the earth). The desire for freedom springs from human nature though, in fact, there exists no complete freedom.(C: is there any logical relationship between these 2 sentences?)
On the one hand, absolute freedom(now that you have said there exists no absolute freedom, how can you say it weakens freedom? There is no premise for this judgement) not only weakens freedom but also amounts to no freedom at times. If all people behave in any ways they like beyond laws and regulations(D), which seem to limit people's power and freedom(C: ? I have no idea why you say LIMIT), the society would in chaos. On the surface(C: do you invent it or learn it? I suggest R: In the first place), people seem to have more rights to make(R: if allowed to make) fully free choice. However, since profits(R: interests) of every side(R: everyone) is inevitable to conflict with one another and in collisions(D), the most powerful would have the final say, then most people with less power would even lose their vested rights as citizens instead of attaining more privileges(C: You want to comment about the absolute freedom, now you are talking about the constrains bringing by POWER). Then our society would then go backward to the uncivilized state.(D) In this way(R: In this case), freedom is best preserved only when it is to some degree constrained
On the other hand, proper and reasonable restrictions make the society operate(R: go) orderly and smoothly. Obviously, restrictions like laws and regulations can make(R: force C: too many “make”s) people to make(R: take) careful considerations before taking an action(R: acting) because the rules stipulate what people should do, what they should not and what punishment they will have to undertake if they breach these limits(R: the dos and don’ts as well as the punishments for disobeying). Then with this limitation(these limitations), each one would not take rash actions from his/her own interest and consider little consequence, because he/she has to worry about the subsequent responsibility.(D) If only(R: Only when C: if only = I wish) all people in their own place obey relevant rules and do what they should do, the society would keep in order. And only in a steady(D) and just environment can each one exert most (A: of) his/her abilities(R: efforts) and thus assure each individual's interest(D: logically wrong).
Sometimes completely free rein makes people feel puzzled(R: puzzled people) when they have so(D) many opportunities to choose(D). Take children as an instance(R: example. C: I never heard anyone say take sth as an instance), in fact(D: this is 2 distinct sentences), due to their immature minds and insufficient knowledge(R: immatureness and ignorance), they cannot make reasonable(R: correct C: a wrong choice is also reasonalbe) choice on most occasions, such as which food is more nutrient and good for their growth(D) or which (A: TV) program (C: normally program make one think about computer programs) is fit for them to watch, etc. Consequently, without instructions and education(D) from parents and schools, they are very likely(R: inclined) to choose the deleterious ones and thus be misled. Moreover, even as an adult, one is not able to do everything they are desirous to because(D) there(R: There) are(R: is) no such omnipotent persons on the earth except(R: even) in the myths. That is, our limited abilities and life spans determined that we have relatively restricted freedom when making a choice(D).
To sum up, not only the requirements from outer environment but also the inner limitations of human beings themselves contribute to the conclusion that there in no absolute freedom in the world, even if it is human timeless dream and goal.作者: glassfrog 时间: 2004-12-28 13:53:00
Again a little puzzled about the choice of position.
The topic seems to ask you to judge which one is more preferred by most people, restriction and regulations or absolute freedom of choice, while this essay seems to be arguing which one should be favored.
Seems like the confusion between "is" and "should". What do you guys think?
Except the choice of position, I think this essay is well developed.
Language is beautiful except some minor grammatical errors.作者: 花之颜色 时间: 2004-12-30 17:20:46
On the other hand, proper and reasonable restrictions make the society operate orderly and smoothly. Obviously, restrictions like laws and regulations can make people to make careful considerations before taking an action because the rules stipulate what people should do, what they should not and what punishment they will have to undertake if they breach these limits. Then with this limitation, each one would not take rash actions from his/her own interest and consider little consequence, because he/she has to worry about the subsequent responsibility. If only all people in their own place obey relevant rules and do what they should do, the society would keep in order. And only in a steady and just environment can each one exert most his/her abilities and thus assure each individual's interest.