Which is better: a controlled environment or a free one? For many centuries people have fought for control like the Romans or the Germans while others have fought for freedom like Gandhi or Malcolm X. While all of these examples have been great and famous I believe that a free environment is better than a controlled one.
             Often times, in a controlled environment the 'controllers' begin to abuse their power. In this situation the people who are being controlled, may not like the laws or rules and rebel against the ruling powers. This rebellion then causes the controllers to fight back with usually end in a blood bath. A very good example of this was in 1919 in India. The British passed a law saying that all Indian marriages were obsolete and that all the Indian women must stay in their homes. The people organized a rebellion but because of their lack of weapons were massacred by the British. If this is what control is I see no point!
             Staying on the subject of the Massacre at Amritsar, the law said that women must stay confined to their homes. If the women must stay in their houses, how can they excel if they can't learn from the outside world. They can't even voice an opinion!
             In controlled environments, people are usually unable to make their own decisions or have their own opinions. The options in life are limited. Take Marie Curie for example. In Poland where she lived, women were not allowed to attend University. If Marie hadn't moved to France to study, would she have excelled? Joseph Stalin is also a good example. He didn't excel because he was controlled but he excelled because of his own decisions and opinions.
             What is the point of wars and conquest: to be able to control more people and land. Take the 2 world wars for example. No land was won or lost in these wars but at what cost: bloodshed. If that is the cost of control, I see no point.
             When people have complete control over other...