[js8]

I downvoted you, because I think this is not true in general. Regulation can actually increase the freedom. It is a concept in philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

And it's also not true in particular, you might happen to be in a group which benefits from given regulation. Hopefully, in a democratic society, the group that is negatively affected (if any) is as small as possible.

[subhobroto]

.. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition.

Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom.

That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea.

If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would decrease not increase.

I quote from the article you linked:

"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

Regulation, by definition, is intolerance.

For example - the minimum wage regulation. You have now removed the freedom of an untrained, unemployed person to sell their labor at a lower floor which was their only way to gain employment when there's a trained but unemployed person willing to also work for minimum wage!

[tkfu]

You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?

Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure that power isn't abused.

[subhobroto]

Regulation, by definition, decreases freedom.

The word regulate, in regulation literally means "decrease freedom".

In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place.

> Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others

Again, regulations can only decrease freedom.

It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists.

The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are.

> Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?

The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not recognize free speech.

Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it.

All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ (not increase) your freedom to speak against the "government".

That is it.

The "government" still can jail you or even kill you.

All that a country that recognizes free speech promises is that after the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong.

If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is.

Also, first amendment to the Constitution does not apply to private citizens.

If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse.

The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win if you have a valid case.

There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.

[germinalphrase]

Your perception of definition is not universal.