Generally speaking, you have the liberty to do what you want relative to another's liberty to do the same. Your rights end where another's begin. Where that plays into laws being made are that not everyone conducts himself in a way that doesn't harm others. So the butcher who has kept his establishment clean and has run his business fairly has to pay somewhat for the fact that others don't do that. Butcher A has to submit to the same checks as B, C, D, and so on. There is, then, always a certain amount of "surrender" to create a rule of law.
The question is, then, the manner in which the overseeing authority comes about and what powers it has. It's a foregone conclusion, I think, that many of the authorities in the United States, at least, have grown beyond the consent of the governed and are more in the pockets of those with greater means. That does not mean there should be no rule of law, but it does mean that the governed have an obligation to check the power of the governing. The founding fathers expected that, but our current government would likely see such statements as "terrorist speak".
