[flagged]
Yes, that is what the law is, by definition. A reduction in freedom. Most times, for very good reason.
Furthermore, any secular law that is in conflict with the laws of God (laws of Nature) is immoral, and therefore null and void.
So the War on Drugs for example and all of the "laws" connected with it, are not actually law. It's the scribblings of tyrants.
Once upon a time I used to buy tamales from a guy on the street corner. He was probably breaking half a dozen business licensing and preparation laws by doing his little street corner business.
HN dwellers would mostly debate for days about getting the right license or some other silly nonsense. Meanwhile tamale man is cooking, tamale man is selling, tamale man is doing his thing. Is he paying his taxes? Who knows. No one ever bothered to find out and from what I can tell nothing ever happened to him.
There's also probably the majority of the US who just make up laws that don't exist and then enforce it against themselves. Most people think they have to give an ID to a cop if he asks for it on the street.
Same effect in HN comments also. Many people hold back from expressing their real views here because they are afraid to run afoul of the Flag Police.
They actually did change that law. Citizens of the Great Empire are now required to identify themselves to any cop who asks their name. For the childrens.
The "show him your government ID which you are now required to keep on you" part hasn't yet been instated, but it's coming. That will be introduced along with a whole heap of other big anti-freedom changes (like Central Bank Digital Currency) during the coming World War.
Now some people, say, look at a pair of expensive shoes and comically blurt out "these prices are criminal!"
That type of usage is a linguistic device known as "exaggeration", but these types of comical exaggerations don't actually change the meaning of words. Like when someone says "You're robbing me!" when a seller proposes a high price, they are not actually changing the meaning of the verb "to rob" and this does not mean that the definition of "to rob" involves charging high prices. That, too, is just an exaggeration.
Incidentally it appears that the meaning of sin or breaking God's laws came before the meaning of breaking secular law.
There just might be an entire army of goons ready to enforce that so-called "law." With an Empire, there always is. But any so-called "law" enacted without permission of the The People are in fact the workings of a tyrant and deserve no serious consideration among free individuals, except whatever minimum is necessary to protect oneself from the tyrant while awaiting (and planning for) his inevitable downfall.
And now you are going off on some laws being unconstitutional and that "most US laws are", when the point I made had nothing to do with a particular jurisdiction or nation, but when laws are deemed unconstitutional they are struck down and are no longer laws, so by definition you have now positioned yourself as a one man supreme court, voiding most US law, when the actual supreme court does not do this. Wow, what an active imagination you have. How you glorify yourself. But please do all that stuff in the privacy of your own home, no need to do it online. Here, e.g. outside of your imagination, people make arguments and you can if you want respond to that argument. Think about it.
It's going to surprise the shit out of you one day when you wake up to find that this entity called the "US Supreme Court" no longer exists, and has been replaced with some other entity which has vastly different ideas about things.
This will likely be accompanied by many people being put on public trial and convicted of various crimes that you and they will vehemently insist weren't against this "law" that you believe you understand the definition of. Yet despite your protestations they will be tried and convicted nonetheless, and in many cases executed.
On that day you will finally understand the definition of Law.
This is how they got Samourai Wallet guy to admit to "operating an unlicensed money transmitter" business despite FINCen saying he wasn't even a money transmitter which means how would he even get a license?