Government - #101 - #14 - What would “Democracy” look like if it was totally “free”?

Would Democracy last if it were totally “Free”?

If my town was attacked and I had the right to “freely” express my choice as to whether I wished to defend my town or not, could my “democratic” town exist?
Is “Freedom” without laws, regulations and restrictions viable?
Can I freely commit “murder”?
Can I “freely” run through a red light?
Is a “Democracy” totally “free”?

Perhaps an ideologue could argue the point, but in the “real world” a Democracy must have limitations for it to survive. We must have a society, which is “mostly free”. We must try to have laws and restrictions which allow our society to be viable, to last, with as few restrictions as possible.

But who makes the definition of what’s “possible”?
What, indeed, allows the “possibility” of the most “freedom”?

Here’s where the controversy begins. Who is this “ruling” person or group? How are they chosen? How long do these rules apply? What do you do if everyone does not agree? Suppose I have good reason not to protect my town? What then?

And so the rule of “logic” and “reason” comes into play. What’s “logical”? What’s “reasonable”?

Those of us who live under the influence of “Democracy” have our own ideas of what it takes and why it’s important to make a “Democracy” viable. Others may not agree! So be it! Let them live in a society with a different belief. The two societies never have to agree! (i.e. So long as they have no need of each other.) But when they have to share, when they cannot ignore one another, there should be no need to agree except as to the specific endeavor that they are trying to share.

Here again is the problem! It depends on what has to be mutually shared. Suppose the oxygen in the air has to be shared. Neither side can avoid the confrontation. But suppose the issue is “safety”, the physical protection of its members? We have a problem! Either side has a point of view. Who is the “arbiter”? Who selects him? On what basis?

Emotions and egos run high. They can cloud “reason and logic”. We have personal egos we have national egos. We have expressions from the streets which have their own reasons for being… imagined or encouraged!

What to do now …what are the choices?
We have physical force …i.e. war!
We have “negotiations” .. but that requires “logical and reasonable” men.
We have continuing “mutual disagreement” … sometimes “physical”, sometimes “verbal

Are there any other choices?…. Is it quite that simple?

Can we act on our choice and remain what we are, what we believe?

Are we truly “free”?