Society is based on rules and laws. It could not function if individuals were free to do whatever they wanted to do. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

The public is governed by various regulations and it is commonly argued that without them communities would not function. I partially agree with

this

view because on one hand

Add a comma

,

show examples

they instil structure yet their static nature may equally hinder societal functions. Laws and rules can be considered as the confines under to operate in thereby enforcing the system.

This

is because

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

for communities to operate effectively and efficiently particular protocols and procedures need to be followed

otherwise

individuals may conduct themselves haphazardly resulting in a dysfunctional environment.

For example

, Wits Business School found that freedom in business operations has

4

Add an article

a

show examples

0% chance of leading into anarchy which will bring the industry and the community to a halt. Evidently, lawlessness can lead to a dysfunctional nation.

On the contrary

, the rigidity of legislation may cripple civilization. The majority of laws and rules are static but expected to control a dynamic environment. As

such

, the same commandments intended to maintain order may impede the

society

when conditions have changed. To instantiate, studies have shown that 70% of the countries have failed to function in the e-hailing taxi environment since the regulations governing the taxi industry are not conducive to the new technology.

Therefore

, it is clear that the regulation’s rigidity in a dynamic

society

can equally ground

society

. In conclusion, I partially agree that

society

could not function without rules and laws because

Add the comma(s)

,

show examples

on one hand, laws bring order to communities yet,

on the other hand

, they can impede operations due to their limited agility.