Why some people agree with " where there is no law, there is no freedom"?

Many people agree with the phrase "where there is no law, there is no freedom." Essentially, this phrase implies that in order to exercise the rights that emanate from freedom (freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, etc.), a minimum of regulation is necessary, allowing these rights to be exercised fairly and equitably., preventing people, in the exercise of their own rights, from injuring the rights of others.

Thus, for example, the right to freedom of movement has limits: everyone has the freedom to move without restrictions, except in those places that are privately owned, which functions as a limit that protects the right to property and privacy from the owners.

As can be seen, laws regulate the scope of rights, to avoid conflicts that could trigger social chaos. Therefore, in the absence of laws, freedoms would be so absolute that they would end up nullifying each other, so in practice such freedom would not exist.