Obviously if you kill someone and are arrested then your right to arms and liberty are temporarily forfeit

Ok, so you mean context

Laws must address the context of you having infringed on someone else's freedom

If someone commits a crime they are not allowed to just walk away in the name of freedom and liberty

Ok, right

They can obviously be detained and their freedom can be temporarily ended

And this is where the problem starts, because obviously it means that an investigation must happen before it can be determined who was in the right and who wasn't

And that investigation is the part that gets corrupted

There could of course be some problems in a justice system

But i think that it would be worth it for the sake of freedom and it can work on a basic level for resolving disputes between two sane parties

Uhm

That part would be for the sake of justice and order, not freedom

You obviously need some level of order infringing on freedom to maintain a functional society

Right

So who watches that?

Who watches those with the power to infringe on freedom?

Elected officials

But they're one and the same, aren't they?

I see your point

We could just have a constitution of how freedoms can be forfeited from an individual and if the government ignores it then civil unrest could resolve it since they would be facing an armed populace

Who enforces that? Another group of elected/appointed officials?

Yeah basically

The elected don't really have an incentive to handicap themselves

Someone else must do it

The people would have to enforce it if the government breaks those rules @Drywa11

who watches the watchers?
the watched

But what if those rules weren't installed in the first place?

Who installs it, and how?

Well in current society we could simply have a slow reform to it

I don't know, it doesn't seem to be happening

Reduced Laws and reduced government power, Increased Personal freedom can all be introduced overtime

Doing it all within a matter of days would of course not work

I'm actually concerned it will never happen if slow reform is the only valid option

Well it would be the only proper way

Why?

Imagine what would happen in the US if the government want from managing many things to just maintaining law and order

If the elected infringe on the rules, don't we have the right to stop them using force?

Yes

Civil unrest from an armed populace would prevent the officials from breaking the rules of the constitution

If public opinion is the only thing ultimately protecting against tyranny, then wouldn’t it be easier to limit a firm/individual than a government that is given the legitimacy to do things others aren’t allowed to?

So if the rules that would allow a civil uprising in case of rulebreaking don't exist yet, but we want them to exist, then we can't rise with force because the rules aren't in place yet, etc... it's a perpetual cycle