The pPros and cCons about lLaws in sSociety

We capitalize the first letter of important words in titles.

From my perospective, a society without laws cannot function well, although too muchany regulations may pose a threat to the society.

If a society doesn’t have effective laws, the society will be chaotic and there iswill be no economic growth.

Laws give people various kinds of rules and regulations to tell every citizen what can dobe done and what cannot be done.

If people act at their will, it will bringcreate a less efficient society and thus the government budget will be tensecreating a strain on the country's economy.

According to the laws about traffic, for example, every adult has the responsibility to comply with traffic rules and regulations at any time anywhere.

Only in this way, can people go to work on time and ensure a smooth traffic flow especially during the rush hour.

Conversely, if people don’t obey traffic rules, somethe number of accidents will increase and being late iswould not be uncommon for them, all of which can undermine the economy.

Laws isare a good tool for people to build a harmonious society.

People are more inclined to be driven by the illegal interests without the law’s restraints.

They are more likely to do something to hurt others, such as fraudulent and violent activities.

For instance, if a salesperson sells counterfeit goods to customers, not only cwould it definitely have an adverse effect on the company’s brand image, but also with the help of laws, the government would impose a harsh punishment on these business practicesit also would be punishable according to the law.

So, there arwill be less illegal events in people’s daily lifeves due to the law and our society will be more healthier and more stable.

However, tToo muchany rules and regulations, however, can restrict people’s freedom to some extent, which may impose a detrimental influence on society’s long-term development.

We avoid using "however" at the beginning of sentences when writing.

If the authority just wants to set complex rules to maintain the society stabletability of society without listening to the public’s voice, the citizens may feel they are ignored and they dwon’t have the motivations to contribute to the development of the whole societysociety as a whole.

One example is the censorship law that restricts the freedom of speech.

If citizens have no opportunity to speak out their voices, the government cannot pinpoint and tackle the problems, such as corruption and bureaucracy.

After a long time, people will be disappointed in society and thus the society will be indulgedfall into stagnation.

In conclusion, it would be difficult to keep a society running smoothly without laws while imposing harsh regulations may produce negative effects.

The pros and cons aboutof having laws in society

Laws are a powerful methodtool to manage [the public].

“The public” seems odd in this context, because laws affect both public and private behavior, and both rulers and the ruled. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, but maybe you could use “society” or “people’s behavior” instead of “the public.”

From my perospective, a society without laws cannot function well, although too much regulations (or: too many regulations) may pose a threat to the society.

If a society doesn’t have effective laws, the society will be chaotic and there is nolack economic growth.

Laws give people various kinds of rules and regulations to tell every citizen what he or she can do and what cannot do.

If people act atccording to their will, it will bring a less efficient society and thus the government [budget] will be [tense].

“Budget” and “tense” both sound odd. Maybe you mean that the “budget will be tight,” but I think you need to explain the connection between an inefficient society and the the “government budget.” The logic of this sentence seems weak to me

According to the law about traffic laws, for example, every adult has the responsibility to comply with traffic rules and regulations at anytime, anywhere.

Only in this way, can people go to work on time and ensure a smooth traffic, especially during the rush hour.

Conversely, if people don’t obey traffic rules, some [accidents will increase and being late is not uncommon for themwill become more common | accidents and lateness will increase], all of which can undermine the economy.

Laws isare a good tool for people to build a harmonious society.

People are more inclined to be driven by the [illegal interests] without law’s restraints | constraints.

“Illegal interests” doesn’t make sense because, without laws, nothing is illegal, so there are no “illegal interests.”

They are more likely to do somethings that will hurt others, such as fraudulent and violent activities.

For instance, if a salesperson sells counterfeit goods to customers, not only could it definitely have an adverse effect on the company’s brand image, but also with the help of laws, the government wcould impose a harsh punishment on these business practices.

I’ve deleted “definitely” and replaced “would” with “could” because neither of these outcomes are certain, since there’s no guarantee that anyone will notice that the goods are counterfeit, and even if someone does notice it, the government might fail to enforce the law.

So, there are lessfewer illegal events in people’s daily lifeves due to the law and our society will bis more healthy and stable m(ore: healthier and more stable).

However, too muchany rules and regulations can restrict people’s freedom to some extent, which can impose a detrimental influence on society’s long-term development.

If the authority just wants to set complex rules to maintain the societyal stableility without listening the publiceople’s voice, the citizens will feel they are ignored and they dwon’t [have motivations | be motivated] to contribute the development of the whole society.

One example is the censorship laws that restrict the freedom of speech.

If citizens have no opportunity to speak out their voiceopinions | thoughts, the government cannot pinpoint and tackle the problems, such as corruption and bureaucracy.

After a long time, people will be disappointed in society and thus the society will be indulged in stagnatione.

“Indulged” is not the right word here.

In conclusion, it would be difficult to keep a society running smoothly without laws(,) while imposing harsh regulations may produce negative effects.

From my perospective, a society without laws cannot function well, although too muchany regulations may pose a threat to the society.

If a society doesn’t have effective laws, the society will be chaotic and there iswill be no economic growth.

Laws give people various kinds of rules and regulations to tell every citizen what can do and what cannot do.

If people act at their will, it will bring a less efficient society and thus the government budget will be tense.

If people simply act according to their own will, society will be less efficient and thus the government budget will be tight.

(General note: what is the relationship between people acting on their own, society running efficiently and the government budget? I am not sure I understand this sentence.)

According to the law about traffic laws, for example, every adult has the responsibility to comply with traffic rules and regulations at anytime anywhere.

OnlyThis ins this way, cane only way people can go to work on time and be ensure ad smooth traffic, especially during the rush hour.

Conversely, if people don’t obey traffic rules, some accidents will increase, and being late is not uncommon for themwill become more common, all of which can undermine the economy.

This is a good sentence -- the relationships are clear.

Laws is a good tool for people to build a harmonious society.

People are more inclined to be driven by the illegal interests without law’s restraints.

This sentence is also not clear. "Illegal interests without law's restraints" is almost non-sensical. (Illegal is literally "violating the law", so without law nothing can be illegal.)

Maybe better: People will be more inclined to dangerous or destructive behavior without the restraint of the law.

For instance, if a salesperson sellold counterfeit goods to customers, not only could it definitelyit could have an adverse effect on the company’s brand image, but also wimage. With the help of laws, the government would impose a harsh punishment on these business practices.

So, there are lessfewer illegal events in people’s daily lifeves due to the law, and our society will beis more healthy and stable.

However, too muchany rules and regulations can restrict people’s freedom to some extent, which impose acould detrimentally influence ona society’s long-term development.

If the authoritygovernment just wants to set complex rules to maintain tha stable society stable without listening to the public’s voice, the citizens will feel they are being ignored and they dwon’t have motivations to contribute the development of the whole society.

One example is the censorship laws that restrict the freedom of speech.

If citizens have no opportunity speak out their voices, the government cannot pinpoint and tackle the problems, such as corruption and bureaucracy.

After a long time, people will be disappointed in society and thus the society will be indulged inbecome stagnationt.

The pPros and cCons about lof Laws in sSociety

"Pros and cons of" is a set phrase.

From my perospective, a society without laws cannot function well, although too muchany regulations may pose a threat to the society.

- Difference between "much" and "many", if you are interested: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/much-many-a-lot-of-lots-of-quantifiers

- It's more natural not to put "the" in front of society, because you are speaking of a general society here.

If a society doesn’t have effective laws, ithe society will be chaotic and there iswill be no economic growth.

Changed "is" to "will be" to keep the tenses consistent.

Laws give peoplprovide various kinds of rules and regulations to tellhat instruct every citizen on what they can do and what they cannot.

- Relative clause "what can do..." is missing a subject, so I added they

- Stylistically the use of "people" and then "citizen" is a bit confusing. I simplified by just using "citizen".

- I changed "tell" for "instruct on", just for stylistic reasons. I think it suits the tone of the writing more. Tell is fine here though.

If people act atccording to their will, it will bring a lessbout a decrease in efficientcy in society and thus the government budget will be tenserestricted.

- the phrase is "according to someone's will"

According to the law about trafficTraffics laws, for example, compel every adult has the responsibility to comply with traffic rules and regulations at anytime, anywhere.

Only in this way, can people go to work on time and ensure a smooth traffictraffic remains fluid, especially during the rush hour.

- "rush hour" is a general phrase, it doesn't need "the" in front of it

Conversely, if people don’t obey traffic rules, somethe number of accidents will increase and being late is not uncommon for themwill become commonplace, all of which can undermine the economy's performance.

- You can also say "accidents will become more frequent"

- Again I changed the second "is" to "will" for consistency

- Good use of "conversely"

People are more inclined to be driven by the illegal interests without law’s restrainthe constraints of laws.

They are more likely to do something hurts that cause harm to others, such as fraudulent and violent activities.

At this moment, lthe Law is a powerful weapon to punish those offenders, helping them understand the boundary between right and wrong.

- you can leave out "those" here because you are talking about a general, abstract situation.

For instance, if a salesperson sells counterfeit goods to customers, not only cwould it definitely have an adverse effect on the company’s brand image, but also with the help of laws, the government would impose a harsh punishment on these kinds of business practices.

- "could definitely" is better phrased as "would". However if you left out "definitely", could would be just fine.

So, there are less illegal events in people’s daily life due to the lLaw and our society will beis thus more healthy and stable.

However, too muchany rules and regulations can restrict people’s freedom to some extent, which can impose a detrimental influence on society’s long-term development.

- If you use "can" in the first phrase, it's best to use "can" in the second as well

If the authorityies just wants to set complex rules to maintain the society stabletability of society without listening to the public’s voice, the citizens will feel they are ignored and they dwon’t have motivations to contribute to the development of the whole society.

- Here's some tips on use if and conditions, if you are interested: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/conditionals-if

One example is the censorship law that restricts the freedom of speech.

If citizens have no opportunity speak out their voices, the government cannot pinpoint and tackle theimportant problems, such as corruption and bureaucracy.

After a long time, people will become disappointed in society and thus the society will be indulgedfall into stagnation.

- "Indulged" isn't the right word here. You could also say "enter into stagnation", or just "become stagnant"

In conclusion, it would be difficult to keep a society running smoothly without laws, whileereas imposing harsh regulations may also produce negative effects.