The concept of liberty is a strange concept to me.   It appears there’s an obscure definition that higher-ups in the industrialized world, Kings, and the hierarchies of castles and kingdoms used when considering life on earth.  It is a strange concept to me because I believe we all should have a high degree of relative freedom, without anyone else telling us when we can be free. In many ways, liberty is a reactionary, reductionist concept of anthropometric rights.  I’m not in favor of any government or organization telling me when I can be free, in industrial earth, kings, castles, and kingdoms.    Precisely, I believe liberty as a term has been used to indicate that there’s some controlling domination over you.   However, we should have a high degree of relative natural freedom.  By relative, I mean that we all have responsibilities on earth to our people, our planet, our families, our communities, and our purposes in life.    However, I prefer the term “high relative natural freedom” to mean choosing what we want to do in life as we strive towards heaven.

 Knowing what I know, it appears that liberty was created in a time of war, slavery, kings, castles, and kingdoms, when it was about granting permission and telling people when they could be free.  Likewise, it is an extreme reactionary kind of reductionism, whereas high relative natural freedom is an expansive, all-inclusive kind of concept.   When you have a diverse number of offerings or opportunities, you experience joy.   Liberty is a concept that tells you when to work and when to be free.   The concept of natural rights is something that I believe in. I do not believe in the same kind of application of rights in Industrial Earth as in the kings, castles, and kingdoms approach, for example, through constitutions.  I believe in generalizing and naturalizing rights so that they are natural consequences of living on Earth.   I agree with the concept that high relative freedom, natural rights are universal and fundamental, inherent to all individuals, and not created by any government, legal system, or corporation. For example, I agree with almost everything the Declaration of Independence says, except for the concept of liberty.   I want to change the word liberty to high relative freedom.   For example, liberty was created to support a system with numerous laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. In contrast, the high relative freedom I envision requires greater agreement on values.  For example, in the We-Me explorer cycle’s similarity foundation, we all strive to live, learn, love, and explore as we live on Earth.  Likewise, we need to be loving, caring, sharing, giving, forgiving, and genuinely kind, striving to bring them the conditions of comfort, joy, love, hope, unity, equity, faith, and sustainable, striving happiness.   This foundation replaces all laws, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, giving us a high degree of relative freedom to live the way we want.   The concept of natural rights has long existed and has been discussed by many people.   I am more in favor of natural rights and greater relative freedom than of liberty.   Nobody does it better than each of us and all of us together. World without end….

I am writing to share a perspective on a concept central to human existence: freedom. While ‘liberty’ is widely embraced, I find myself wrestling with its traditional interpretation, and I believe a more nuanced understanding is imperative.

My unease stems from the historical baggage associated with ‘liberty.’ It often seems to define freedom as something granted or withheld by external authorities—be it historical monarchies, industrial powers, or governmental structures. This perspective inadvertently suggests a controlling dynamic, where individuals are ‘permitted’ to be free, rather than inherently possessing that state. The term ‘liberty,’ in this context, has historically emerged from reactive efforts to define rights against an oppressive backdrop of kings, castles, and industrial hierarchies. It can feel like a restrictive concept, one that delineates when and how one is allowed to operate, rather than empowering boundless potential.

Instead, I advocate for ‘high relative natural freedom.’ This concept posits that genuine freedom is an intrinsic state, not a conditional grant. The term ‘relative’ is crucial here, as it acknowledges our inherent interconnectedness and responsibilities—to our families, communities, our planet, and our individual life’s purpose. It speaks to the expansive ability to self-determine one’s path, aligning with one’s highest aspirations and spiritual journey. This is a proactive, all-encompassing ideal that empowers individuals to thrive, explore, and find joy within a framework of shared values and abundant opportunities.

I wholeheartedly embrace the principle of natural rights—universal, fundamental entitlements inherent to every individual, independent of any governmental or legal decree. I find myself in strong agreement with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in its assertion of these intrinsic rights. However, my divergence occurs with its embrace of ‘liberty’ as the ultimate expression of this freedom. I believe natural rights should be seen as the inherent consequences of our existence, a foundational truth for living on Earth, rather than codified permissions within systems that previously dictated our freedom.

My preference is to replace ‘liberty’ with ‘high relative natural freedom’ in our discourse. This isn’t merely a semantic shift; it signifies a fundamental paradigm change. ‘Liberty,’ as historically applied, often necessitates an extensive framework of laws, regulations, and policies to delineate its boundaries. ‘High relative natural freedom,’ conversely, flourishes within a framework built not on prescriptive rules, but on a collective agreement of values.

Consider, for instance, the ‘Similarity Foundation,’ as conceptualized within the ‘We-Me Explorer Cycle.’ This foundation champions core tenets: living, learning, loving, and exploring our existence on Earth. It emphasizes active cultivation of love, care, sharing, giving, forgiveness, and genuine kindness. These shared principles form the bedrock upon which we can cultivate an environment brimming with comfort, joy, love, hope, unity, equity, faith, and sustainable happiness. This value-driven approach, I believe, inherently fosters ‘high relative natural freedom,’ allowing individuals to navigate their lives authentically, without the restrictive burdens of excessive legislation.

The enduring concept of natural rights serves as a powerful testament to our intrinsic worth. My aspiration is to see these rights realized through the lens of ‘high relative natural freedom’—a vision of collective flourishing grounded in shared purpose and mutual respect, rather than a limited, externally defined ‘liberty.’ It is in our combined efforts, as individuals and as a global community, that we truly manifest a world without end, guided by an expansive and inherent sense of freedom.

Richard Thomas Simmons