Friends of Freedom



`  Few seem to have considered what the word ‘freedom’ actually implies. To be fully free would require us to more than somehow survive escape from our bodies, but to also ward off the strictures imposed by time, such as past and present, the future, a heritage, a history… Space would pose no problem were it not so full of things we’d have to go around, already posing a limitation to our freedom.
`  We can see how there can be no such thing as perfect freedom for as long as there’s existence, and can guess that very few of us want to do away with that, so we have to accept that freedom will always have limitations. We also have to realize that to proclaim ‘freedom’, by itself, without a qualifier the way politicians do, has no meaning. We say, “We are free.” When some of us are freer than others, how does that mean anything?
`  Let us resume embodiment, put time and space back in order, and have a quick look at this. By now, it must be more obvious that freedom cannot be perfect, but must always involve a compromise between ourselves and the nature of our constraints. Freedom, then, must be qualified to be meaningful.
`  We generally accept our natural constraints and work to overcome those we can’t endure: we are limited to occupy only one place at any instant, and accept that; we cannot fly, but designed machines to lift and transport us by the hundreds; we cannot see faraway events, and so designed many machines to carry desired images to us to be viewed now, or at our future convenience. Those tools, and more, enhance our freedoms and can increase our accomplishments.
`  We are some ways constrained by our nature as a social animal, without which our species would have suffered an early extinction. Our highly sexual nature, though limited (except on odd occasions) to one child per birth, enabled somewhat rapid increase in population and expansion around the globe. So, with all that constraint-overcoming talent at our disposal, why must freedom remain such a problem?
`  That arose from our social nature. As we became numerous, the various tribes developed rules of behavior, and punished those who broke them. As time passed and populations increased, tribes began infringing on each other’s territories and resources. Area governments developed in various ways to deal with that problem and punish the lone marauders banished from their tribes.
`  Such governments were usually an arm of the religions that developed to deal with all the spirits thought to inhabit all kinds of places in those times. As polytheism morphed into monotheism, religion showed itself to be a cruel master by producing the Dark Age while imposing rules against actions that could never be shown to in any way endanger our specie’s safe survival. Religion-run government became a greater threat to humanity than those threats its purpose was to defeat.
`  The split between government and religion was made to prevent that kind of inhumanity from ever occurring again. In the USA and most other countries, that split is incomplete and erratically applied. For so long as that stays true, only some can justify a claim to freedom. Those who feel satisfied with their circumstances are normally apathetic and often defend the status quo. Those who feel the ongoing effects of injustice are left to recruit help to gain the numbers required to have any effect. That is not a good system for dealing with a deficiency supposed to not exist.


Please leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s