What is Freedom?

A simple question and thought problem:

1. Can individual liberty exist in the absence of possible retribution by that individual?

2. Can a man call himself free if his freedom is determined by a higher authority which could deem it expendable or disposable?

3. Does the pragmatic social efficiency of the collective supersede the existence of a free man?

4. If we are to deviate from the very simple and basic concepts of individual liberty by bastardizing our system of laws in favor of the collective, what prevents the continuation of social de-evolution and the advance of centralization of power?

I submit that individual liberty cannot exist without the ability to protect it. This is in line with our founder's thoughts, concurrent writings and our Constitution.

America is a unique system of government. It is bespoke in our history of world governments. It is the only system that endeavors to solidify and protect a person as an individual. It is a system of balance. This is the nature and intent of 2A. It is a check and balance of power in the system, just as the divided branches of government and the freedom of the press (1A).

Diffused, balanced, power is the design. The Second Amendment Right is an integral and necessary component of our system that maintains the balance, especially in times like these where the executive branch runs afoul of our constitution, laws and ignores the power of the various divided branches of government.

I’ve heard people refer to America as ‘A Free Country’, ‘A Free People’, and ‘A Free Society’. ‘A Country’, ‘A People’, ‘A Society’ are not existential beings with consciousness and free will. These are not living entities. There are only free individuals. Freedom or any condition that can exist for a man, exists only for the individual. 'A Free People' can only exist as the plural reference to free individuals.

Freedom is defined by one’s ability to exercise the liberty and most importantly secure that liberty with threat of retribution. Freedom is the power of control over ones desity.  Hence, this debate is not about safety and security. It is about whether individuals have control over their destiny.  It is about individual liberty.

In the absence of potential reprisal, liberty does not exist. One can live in a state of high level permission and social latitude afforded by the government or the majority respectively, but there can be no liberty or freedom for the individual without the ability to secure that liberty as an individual.

'A People' or government cannot serve as the surrogate to secure the liberty of the individual, for the people or the government can amend their definition of liberty or impose laws that inhibit liberty.

Our founders recognized this dilemma and so inscribed into our laws, the recognition that certain basic liberties are born to every person. These basic liberties are off limits to the power of the government and ‘the people’. This is why our Constitution is a document of government limitations and an affirmation of individual liberties.

To exist in a state of freedom and liberty, one must understand that liberty as defined by our constitutional rights is inexorably tied to the ability to secure those rights through the threat of retribution.