To me, freedom is an inherent and inviolable concept, it is entirely unavoidable. One is always free, they can always make a choice. Even in the indeterministic models of reality, you are who you always will be, a minus or a plus, a sum, you will always churn out to a response that suits your fancy. Dynamics is part of the indeterminism, it does not really violate anything important about system flux. Freedom is probably one of the most fundamental and valuable concepts to our existence, because it is inherently tied to decision making and the consequence of actions, entanglement, even. I think that entanglement, constriction and liberty are all wonderful. Or, more realistically, they are life itself. And life is pretty wonderful, it is hard to hate something that simply is. How could existence hate itself? And is hatred a form of ingratitude? You could ponder on these things for a very long time indeed. As far as I am concerned, any system which necessarily lacks consequential effects, that is to say, is perfect, or has no permissible differences, it is 'Heavenly', in the logical sense, would be Hellish. I am a creature and construct formed of a reality which is imperfect, is formed from and derives from necessary inequality. The idea of a world in which there is no such thing, that all things are balanced nad perfected, that there is no meaningful struggle or striving, that all things are granted in immediacy, that there is no consequence, is nightmarish. I could not think of something more dull, more disinteresting, and disheartening. But then again it depends on how far you take it, or what lens. True perfection would boil down to complete uniformity of matter and energy, would it not? So perhaps the material realm would become one of complete and utter entropy, with implausible change. Immaterially you could posit a caveat, but, I digress.
Political freedom? I do not believe the concept exists. It is mostly a falsehood. People peddle it as something that their system creates, but it is not true.
A system creates pressures. What are these pressures? They are social ones, like what your parents raised you to act like, they are environmental ones, like the infrastructure and agriculture and economic developments around you. The medical care. They are the legal ones, the law enforcement and consequence of actions that are not permitted by the state / society. All of these create pressures to adapt, whether through generations, short-term behaviours, long-term or otherwise. They create a system in which it is advantageous to act, look, think and raise things a certain way. But that sounds very familiar, does it not? Democracy is a system that talks about freedom, but it is no such thing. It enforces pressures all the same. It is a natural fact of life, I am sure. No system can interact with another system, without, well, necessarily interacting with it, and that will always have consequences. Even if someone says they are neutral, that is not true, there is always something measurable. So what is democracy, then? Or any system of governance, and its related ideologies?
Democracy is a system of governance (often confused with an ideology), which believes the most efficient form of bureaucracy is one which is electorally representative or involves the citizens themselves in all matters of statesmanship.
Therefore, any ideology that believes in being democratically governed, regardless of what it is, necessarily conforms to pressure of the majority, or, pressure of popularity, more familiarly. This would naturally carry on, in my thinking, to a society in which the most advantageous person is the most sociable one, an ideology or a pressure of the sycophant, the narcissist, the intelligent sociopath, even. This, of course, also changes highly depending on the ideology in power, and the policies in place, as well as the specific form of Democracy. But in terms of pure democracy, this is the almost guaranteed outcome.
It is also important to note that in a pure democracy, it would also prioritise or favour the people's hero, the benefactor, the public servant, as well. Practically anyone who has great charm. They are people who are generally agreeable, who are able to converse well with others, to convince or to demean their opposition, and because of their conformity, or agreeance with the status quo, they are hard to dislodge - they have public support, necessarily, they have sympathy from all corners, and the system itself is geared towards their advantage. The policies that come into play will almost definitely benefit the sociable and active agent of society, malicious, ambivalent, benevolent or otherwise. They will be the most desired to the most number of people, they will therefore be highly agreeable, highly lenient, highly generalised policies.
