Freedom and social order are reciprocal in nature. In times of chaos, governments tend to try to restore peace and order by any means necessary, usually through power. On the other hand, in moments of tranquility, there is a healthy meaning of freedom. It is the responsibility of the state to protect and serve the people. Usually, after a catastrophic event, such as a mass murder at an airport, the government would step in and restore order in this situation, but how far will it go? Should there be more laws and regulations – thus limiting everyone's freedom in any form – or should the government not intervene at all? If a nation were to find itself in a situation like this, it should neither take full control nor allow itself to take control; however, it should moderate it to maintain both freedom and social order. After a tragic event, people should expect their government to take some action, but there are many beliefs about how their government should operate. Henry David Thoreau in “Civil Obedience” believes that people can control themselves, “the government is the best that governs the least” (305). A government that governs less is not an ideal state, especially because of unstable people, such as the mentally ill. What Thoreau is explaining is that all people have discipline, which is not entirely true. It doesn't take into account unstable, mentally ill people who have no one to stop them, who have no self-control; however, letting them manage themselves is tantamount to releasing wild animals, which will then give destructive results. Therefore, the state must be a safety net in case something becomes chaotic. Another reason why government should bring freedom and social order to... middle of paper... the public desire to give up freedom would be considered foolish because Rousseau. He explains: “Such an act of surrender is illegitimate, null and void for the simple fact that the one who does it…is not of sound mind. Saying the same thing about an entire People is equivalent to admitting that the People in question are a nation of imbeciles. Imbecility does not produce law” (245). He believes that the loss of freedom is in no way acceptable. In conclusion, when people gain more order, they lose some of their freedoms, voluntarily or not. Works Cited Thoreau, Henry D. "Civil Disobedience." A world of ideas. By Lee A. Jacobus. 9th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin, 2013. 301-305. Print.Gibson, James L. “The Struggle Between Order and Freedom in Contemporary Russian Political Culture.” Australian Journal of Political Science 32.2 (1997): 271-90. ProQuest. Network. November 21. 2013.