Liberty depends on self-restraint. Freedom is freedom only when controlled and limited.

Liberty is absence of restraint. Freedom is participation in government.

Liberty in the most literal sense is the negation of law for law is restraint, and the absence of restraint is anarchy. On the other hand, anarchy by destroying restraint would leave liberty the exclusive possession of the strong or the unscrupulous.

Control exists only when there is action of will, positively or negatively. Will is resistance. When the mind is learning, there is no resistance.

Restraint from ill is freedom to the wise;
But Englishmen do all restraint despise.

Liberty, as such, is only the negative of duty, the absence of restraint or compulsion.

Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire.

Control is an illusion. It doesn’t work.

Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being.

It has been assumed that freedom means the absence of limitation, which is correct but misleading; for it explains by a negative, and has therefore led to the absurdities of individualism. ... The value of freedom lies in the original impulse, and not in the absence of an obstacle.

Not to do what you feel like doing is freedom

I considered acting an opportunity to express emotions—and I took advantage of every opportunity l got. It took me a long time to discover that restraint can be admirable. Restraint, however, does not mean lack of emotion. The thing that irks me is lack of emotion trying to pass for restraint. Lack of emotion is pathological; restraint is civilized.

Discipline must be without control, without suppression, without any form of fear...It is not discipline first and then freedom; freedom is at the very beginning, not at the end.

The word "restraint" implies the asking of an essential question, one that is more important now than ever, and is antithetical both to capitalism and to science as we practice them: Because we can do something, must we do it?