That example doesn't work well. All regulations come at the cost of freedom, and every freedom comes at the cost of regulations. While it isn't a strict binary (either 100% freedom or 100% regulation), enacting regulations do interfere with freedom. So this isn't just framing, it demonstrates a relationship between the two concepts, which may become relevant down in the discussion, if it already hasn't.

▲

layer8 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Regulation can cause freedom to be balanced differently between parties. For example, regulating smartphone manufacturers can result in more freedom for users. It’s not true that regulation necessarily reduces freedom overall (to the extent that that can even be graded). Just like rights, freedoms aren’t absolute, and one’s freedom often impinges on someone else’s freedom.

▲

bit-anarchist 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The increase of freedom of the users is an indirect side effect, intentional or not, which, as you put it, can happen, or not. But a direct effect, which is guaranteed to happen, is the loss of freedom of the manufacturer. Whether that's a good thing, that's another topic.

▲

qotgalaxy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The increase of freedom of the slaves is an indirect side effect. But a direct effect, which is guaranteed to happen is the loss of freedom of the slaveholder.

	▲	bit-anarchist 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's certainly a perspective, specially given how slavery is often regulated into law. But I digress, there's a plentiful discussion to be had about the ethics and morality of freedom/regulations, but my point is how there is, in fact, a dichotomy between both and it isn't just framing. Which, in a sense, you just corroborated.