I am sure that with a little time and effort I could write a book on all the limitations of freedom, but it appears in so many ways, in so many places, and on so many scales, so there must be some way that I can simplify it. It seems that freedom has one real variable which it is dependent upon and that is ability, or one's ability to implement their choice in changes from one situation to the next. So if freedom is implicitly contingent upon one's ability to exercise choice, it makes logical sense that any examination of freedom will begin with an examination of that limiting ability. What inhibits that ability. What promotes or enhances it. It also seems there are two major ability areas by which one's freedom is increased or decreased. They are "the physical" and "the mental".
             The physical should be fairly obvious. There are no humans who can defy gravity and fly at will without mechanical aid, this is a liberty that we simply do not have at this point in time. If one were to choose to jump off a cliff and fly, odds are that they would be fairly disappointed by that choice due to their own inability to fly. That means that his or her ability to exercise the choice between flying and falling to the ground in that situation would be non existent. Gravity limits freedom to a certain extent. One who does not have legs lacks the ability to choose between walking and not walking. One who does not have eyes lacks the ability to choose between seeing and not seeing. Due to these and other physical limitations, humans lack total physical freedom.
             As stated before, however, there are degrees to freedom. Someone who does not have legs may not have the freedom to get up and walk whenever he/she would like. However, their freedom of mobility would be increased by a wheelchair (assuming that their arms were working well enough to use it). This would increase their freedom, not make it as complete as someone who has two legs (as the subjec
             ...