Dictionary.com defines freedom as the condition of being free of restraints (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom). To most people, this means that having freedom is to be completely free to do whatever they feel like doing. After much brainstorming, I chose the word freedom because I believe that there are many different limitations in regards to freedom. The dictionary fails to define that freedom has consequences, and that the earth and society has placed many, many limitations upon the dictionaryâ€™s definition of freedom. My revised definition of freedom is the condition of being free of restraints, limited by the law of science and the constraints of society. Since the current definition of freedom does not contain those important words, I believe that the definition is wrong and should be changed.
To be free is to have no external restraint. If we were truly free to walk wherever we wanted to walk, the earth that we live on would have to be completely traversable. There would be no mountains, no oceans and no chasms. There would also be no buildings and no restricted areas or private property. The truth is we arenâ€™t completely free to walk wherever we want. And since the denotative definition of freedom tells us that freedom knows no restraints, the definition is incomplete. If somebody were to ask me if I was free to travel anywhere in the world, I would have to say no. It is currently impossible for a human being to travel to the bottommost part of the ocean, even with todayâ€™s advanced technology. Therefore, I am not free to travel anywhere that I wanted. The earthâ€™s design has limitations on our freedom of travel, which is why I would add limited by the law of science to the definition of freedom.
Society has placed limitations on freedom in many ways. All countries have laws that people are expected to follow. If we fail to abide by the law,