If we speak of freedom most of the time what we are referring to is what can only be applied in a subjective sense in which the circumstances that those who listen to words of freedom wish to apply them. However it is easily undeniable that the purpose and essence of freedom is found within the will and gained right to express that which a person may feel is the correct thing, which gives right to the right by which it is possible under law for a right to be a lawful right.

So what then might freedom be if right is correct in order to be legal and we change all the time seeking increasingly more rights?

If an ancien must be expressed, then it is easy to say that a right is right because it is a deduced acceptance of what a person who has done good beyond the previously existent good has come to deserve in the process of an independent adjudicator deciding whether such a person must be accepted in an environment where such have come to be displaced by the good they practice.

Thus i venture to conclude this: although the nature and value of freedom is subject to interpretation, there is no doubt that it's entire function is based on the practice of good; a win, a victory over the practice of wrong.