So, if absolutely everything I say is demonstrably wrong, then, if you are so precise, demonstrate how and why something I said is wrong!
You've had a bunch of things pointed out as wrong, and even had them explained to you at some length.
You regularly conflate Sartre's concept of internal freedom as the genesis of action which can be independent of circumstance with the fact that humans react to circumstance as a matter of course. This seems to be one of the more fundamental of your logical failures. You simply don't even remotely understand the source material you're basing your entire argument on.
You state without support or evidence that law and other codes of behavior are intended by their creators and enforcers to fill the role of human will as opposed to the reality that they are designed to provide a transactional punishment for misbehavior and ideally discourage people from making the choice to commit crime.
You put forward the discredited
tabula rasa theory of human development.
You advocate overthrowing that which is when you admit you have no theory, no plan, no reason to assume what will take its place will be superior in any respect.
You claim that in 1776 there was no law (false) and that "everything proceeded calmly and with propriety" (also false).
etc.
You've been shown - carefully and with more than a little patience - specifically where you've made errors. You've tended to blunder past those critiques.