Reflecting on this topic took me back to history; to the colonial period, which I believe was the experience of several other countries too. All that the people who were under that rule and authority wanted was freedom. To be free from the oppression and rule of their colonial masters and have a life dictated by themselves, not controlled and directed by those that aren't even their brothers and sisters.
Even today, the desire for freedom is still there. There might not be the traditional way of oppression as it was then. Slavery and all that might not be prevalent in the way we know it and it used to be. There are still figments of these actions and deeds that tend to suppress others, taking away their full autonomy over themselves. It's replaced with a systematic way, hidden and shielded by the very systems welcomed to address this problem.
One of the major desires of humans is freedom. The free will to do or not do things remains a major concern of many. That's why we have the International Human Rights Laws that attend to this need and concern. There are several freedoms and rights: the right to life, freedom of assembly, association, religion, speech, and so on. But looking at society, with the clamour still on this and similar matters, it raises a question if there's truly free will.
A popular statement goes, “You have the freedom of speech but freedom after speech isn't guaranteed.” It expresses a deep concern about how people can say things and yet have it used against them, sometimes costing their lives even. When we consider the freedom of assembly and association, do people really have that? Even in your house you fear insecurity and all that. All these leave the concern about true free will.
The concern is a valid one. This is because it leaves grievous consequences sometimes or leaves one handicapped in expressing free will. But there's a thin line to this, one that we should well understand. The fact that there's free will doesn't mean one is at will to do everything and all things. If it were so, we would be living constantly in a state of anarchy. Which is why there's the law; it defines the dos and don'ts, and limits to free will.
The law makes it so that you can own firearms in some countries, but there are laws on how you use them. It provides that you can say what you want, but what is deemed to incite violence and uprising is a problem. That goes also for freedom to join associations. But when you join a problematic one, you also will have problems. This means that there are boundaries even to the free will we have. We have it, but with boundaries and limits, though this can be abused.
Morality also places a guide on free will. Not a social construct, but things that we know and have been taught to be wrong that are really wrong. Yes, I understood how society can misconstruct free will and create a standard around it. That's certainly wrong and it doesn't validate the ideals explained above. That's what we should be against. And sadly, while we seem to have free will, it also gets handcuffed. Not under limits or boundaries, but forcefully.
