Freedom Fallacies

Once defined simply as lack of restraints, 'freedom' has come to have a list of various and contradictory meanings.  Types of freedom now include the likes of freedom from restrictions, freedom from rules, freedom from hardships, from tyranny, from hate,  and so on.  Thus, the freedom we once fought for has become a muddled mass of confusion, each individual clamoring for more of his preferred type of freedom.

Freedom from rules and restrictions (i.e. anarchy), cannot exist for all, as the granting of such freedom would mean the ability of one to infringe on the freedom of another.  Thus such freedom would only be had by the powerful, who would destroy the freedom of others.

Freedom from hardships, from hate or pain could not exist either.  For such a freedom to exist, there could be no freedom to choose, for such things come as a result of individual choice.  The elimination of choice is impossible, as it cannot be possible for any but God, who has condemned such ideology, to possess such monitoring and controlling power (i.e. Big Brother) sufficient to control all though and action.  Indeed, the very attempt at the monitoring and controlling of some population will certainly be in direct violation of various wants and desires of those whom are controlled, thus creating hardships, hate, and pain.

True freedom, maximized freedom for all parties, the freedom we ought to pursue with fierce conviction, is that of a personal level.  Under such freedom, there exists a sphere for each individual which is their own.  Within that sphere, individuals may do as they please, to acquire possessions, to pursue their own ends, to live as they choose.  Nothing within their sphere may infiltrate another's sphere without their consent.  Yet, consenting individuals may enter each other's spheres as they see fit.  Thus the pursuit of happiness, as it is so termed, becomes a true freedom for each individual, to pursue such ends in whichever way they choose.

Except in rare cases of mental incapacity, this freedom must be granted to all, else justifications of restricting freedom could have no bounds.  Even those who, as one might perceive, might do harm and evil to themselves, choose to do so because the perceive it to give themselves the most joy within the context of their own situation.  Who are we to say they are wrong?  For their happiness emerges from their own self-concept, from their own perspective.  Forcing one to do right according to another cannot result in happiness, but only resentment and hate, for any and all involuntary action breeds such. 

Laws must exist to protect the spheres of individual freedom.  When laws are issued to violate such spheres, or alternatively when laws fail to protect those spheres, freedom is lost, and with it the chance of happiness of those who lost it.