2+--+s.g.

A conception of autonomy, is based upon a misconception of boundaries. A perception of limitless abandon is ruined by practicalities and barriers of reality. The notion of freedom is flawed, the ability to perform any action without confinement is an illusion.

We imagine our actions to be infinite, when reality is a finite world. We base our actions around the mirage of true freedom when in actuality our "free" surroundings are a facade. Free speech is an example that encapsulates the entire situation. Allowances are made to ensure we can utter the words we want to, but people have been persecuted for stating offensive things. Parameters are placed so we have a contradictory freedom; a law protected freedom that holds you hostage to abide by freedom, but even then, does not guarantee an actual true choice.Moreover, if the words spoken somehow break other "freedoms" have been destined to us, a cyclical battle to determine which freedoms give way to others makes a completely autonomous choice logically impossible. If any freedom can plausibly contradict another freedom then every action has a preset limit. Any block to true autonomy completely transforms the concept of freedom into a perception.

Freedom is not only a logical battle, but a practical nightmare. Even if a path is clear to pursue any option, barriers present them self based upon pragmatic reasons, e.g., finances or lack of opportunity. Freedom is zero sum, only a limited amount can exist, otherwise the infringement of alternative problems occurs as indicated in the status quo with the free speech example. The implications are large, when one person has freedom, that freedom thwarts that of others. If a person obtains numerous funds, another cannot obtain wealth. If someone earns an award for doing an action, another award will not be given to the other for a repetition of an old response. Freedom cannot exist for all and thus never be our conception of linguistic freedom, trapping the term to a mere intangible ideal.