Poemander

Any kind of freedom, or liberty, sought or even imagined is, ultimately, condenses to a mere desire of breaking from the effects of the cause or willing the effects while renouncing the cause.

In this sense, such freedom is an utopia as there is no cause without the effect. Freedom is not an escape or a rebellion: one cannot be free from the effects if not free from the causes. And if one pursues such a lopsided privilege, than such freedom is not at all a freedom, but a pursuit of power required in maintaining the asymmetry .

In order to be free from both one needs to be separate from both, which is not even hypothetically possible, since it is not only the acts that form causes, but also the omissions to act that will trigger the effects. As discussed earlier, the existence itself is the cause and the effect. Therefore, one can neither stop producing the cause, nor stop receiving the effects. On the other hand, Freedom can be a total acceptance of both, the deed and the outcome. Acceptance transcends both and annuls both cumulatively.

Therefore, an entity is free whenever it accepts that it is free. So, the free will, an ingredient of freedom, lies in the fact of undertaking or not undertaking such an acceptance – that's all.

Thus freedom is not a 'right' or some sort of natural privilege, quite to the contrary; freedom is a choice, however, not as the 'freedom of choice', but as a 'choice of freedom' – the one and only possible choice. In other words, freedom is the point of perception.

Sounds simple and it really is. The conundrum is pivoted on resolution of remaining attached to one side of transaction and paradoxical insistence on its validity even when the outcome is perceived to be adverse.

Take the concept of fate for example. The so called freedom is pretty much always relinquished voluntarily, yes in both cases of the giver and the taker. Anyone entering the transaction with an expectation of a specific outcome is relinquishing the freedom in leu of this expectation which itself is a bond. This bond if often supported by fear and other incumbents derived from the possibility of failed expectation. The borrower is feared of repossession if unable to meet the payment, lender is anxious about the defaulting loans. The parents are stressed that their children will not become who they planned they would, children are restrained by the emotional toll of their parents' expectations and indeed the weight of 'investment' parents made into them. Spouses are jealous because they are afraid of other one breaking the vows. Communities are exasperated that the government is failing them in basic rights while taking advantage of them through force or taxes. The doctrine of original sin is not making things easier either, ensuring a permanently broken expectation of ever redeeming one's debt to the 'creator' and I wouldn't be surprised to discover that such a 'creator' is too permanently distressed with the non-performance of his/her/their subjects.

What they all need to do is to accept the possibility of non-performance and failure together with the possibility of performance without putting extra weight on any of the possibilities. You are allowed to think of this as a hypocritical and an impossible recommendation, yet I insist on continuing this line of thought and taking it to a point where the following assertion should gradually start making sense: all the above mentioned and many other contracts are inherently defunct.

There are two sides of the very same reasoning: The parties entering these contracts do not have the legal capacity to do so.

Side one.

In what legal capacity did I enter the social contract at birth? As a newborn? De facto? De jure? I clearly deny and repudiate any of such agreements on the grounds of incapacity. Neither, did I make a contract with my parents at birth, nor in my childhood, thus I reject the notion of owing anything to them. Equivalently, I do not expect my children to be owing anything to me. Marriage contract, expressed or implied is an absolute joke. To be in love is to be mad, it is to be incapacitated in legal terms. And if I did it in the right mind, that means that I wasn't in love and that means that all my vows were lies. Such contract is deemed void before it even becomes a binding contract. Did I too enter any contract with God? Devil? You all must be kidding me. The priests who claim to be his representatives can never show me the prove of such an arrangement. And even if they do, somehow, it is clearly not a contract made on equal terms. I repudiate this too. How about the corporations, banks, societies? They do not exist. I know, I know, they maybe incorporated entities, I too studied corporate law. But who are they? I only saw their representatives, directors. Can they prove to me that they are indeed representing these entities? Best they can do is to show me their letter of appointment by shareholders. Now show me the shareholders! At least 51% of them, I want to look them in the eye when signing a contract. Oh, I see, the company is huge and the shareholder base is to dispersed to be brought together, then sorry, anything I signed is invalid because it is not an equal arrangement. Banks have the power to multiply money and you are saying that I can sign a contract with the bank on equal terms? This too goes in the bin. Partnerships? Fine, ever wondered why professional audit and accounting firms are arranged as partnerships (nowadays in disguise of corporate identity aka limited partnership)? Because money is a personal matter, or more clearly the debits and credits that they represent. This is a question of honour, and honour demands eye-to-eye relationship. I am an individual, not the same as any other party, insurmountable difference between each and everyone. How can you apply to me the standard of an average 'reasonable' person? Potentially, every legal contract is repudiated this way.

Side two.

The law recognizes the fact that husband and wife are one and tend to act in consort. Every agreement between them is deemed to be no-binding unless deliberately drafted to be otherwise. Yet, this caveat is relatively recent, so we shall deem spouses as one. What about parents and children? I'm going to share the last drop of water with my children. What contracts are we talking here? You have got to be sick, very sick. To make legal arrangements with your children is like to make a contract with yourself. Remember, you need at least two parties to the contract. Repudiated.

Neighbors? Friends? Brothers and sisters? We have grown together, we ate of the same plate. We have too much in common to treat us as unrelated parties. There is a conflict of interests no matter what we agree on. We never start with a cart Blanche, there is always more to what is written in the contract. Our overarching motifs and entanglements make any legal arrangement at best questionable. And while this is so, why do you think that a contract with the society as a whole is any different? And is there indeed such a contract? Who is society? Is it my town? My country? Whole world? If it is not specified then whom is the contract with? If a society is the collection of individuals representing it, than I am one of these individuals. Why do I have to make a contract with myself? Clearly absurd. I am also a Cosmos, I recognize myself in every star and in every brook running down the hill. I am one with God, if you want it this way. Why make contract with myself? Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.

The two sides of the same coin described above are not extremes. They are not the hypothetical oppositions. Do not start drawing the line between them and saying, “well, we must be somewhere in between on this sliding scale”, no, no and no. These two sides represent the very same phenomena, aka real life. They both have the same rational and factual outcome: the absurdity of contractual arrangements, obligations, debts, but also the entitlements, rights and privileges. At this point you may think that I have gone too far, ok, stand up and leave. Yet, if you still are willing to linger you may go on asking me what do I think this very tangible system of laws and legalities which I have so lightheartedly renounced actually is? And I tell you: it is exactly that fickle sliding scale that you were just trying to build between my so called opposites. It is an imaginary structure constantly trying to balance itself out and adapt to the pressures of the very real forces thrown at it. The freedom is not in avoidance of this structure, but in understanding its ephemeral nature. The outcomes of such system are transient and frankly, irrelevant, effecting not the bottom line where the sum of all debits always equals the sum of all credits. Zero