FREEDOM in relation to group status
 
To me, there is a confusion I see some make about the ontological nature of FREEDOM in relation to group status. They think it’s like being alone uninfringed by anything or anyone allowed to do anything. But how can you profess freedom, when you are alone and completely uninvolved with others when the freedom requested, is from the group, to begin with, whether or not one realizes it. So it is wrong to think that freedom is like being alone, rather a FREEDOM of this nature is found in the status of a group or in group dynamics where one individual still holds group sanctioned autonomy thus conceding some limit to one’s freedom rights where they interact with others freedoms. To me, freedom of the social engagement variety involves the reasonable acknowledgment of behavior bubbles of freedom restraint compared to the free flow of unhindered involvement with others freedoms. Social freedom in this way involves behaving in a group setting with freedom equally, which by nature has the internal limit to one’s free choice to do something such as violate the rights of another by something like hitting them just because that is how the puncher wanted to live their freedom rights. Which I am sure most agree is a violation of the social equity of respect of the freedom and dignity of others as fellow freedom holders. To conceive of social freedom as if it is like being alone one should stop and think this would mean everyone could do as they wished which would include violating the freedom of everyone else showing social freedom must involve respecting the freedom rights of others even if to do so automatically add limits to what can be expected from one’s own limits social freedom because one has some reasonable freedom ONLY if others also respect them. Freedom of this social nature is a behavior as much as a right or status.