There is a very famous and true saying of Rousseau, “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains”. However, it would be even suitable to say that man is not born free, because when a child is born he is tied in relations. He takes birth as someone’s brother, someone’s son or someone’s cousin. Moreover, he is related to a particular religion, faction, ethnic group and cast. These all factors influence him during his birth and even afterwards.  All these relationships and connections are chains but it is not realized by him as he is too little to comprehend all those facts. Consequently, in the strictest sense of the word freedom, an individual cannot be considered to be free from inception of his life till the very end. So, can it be understood that it is not likely for an individual to be free? The response to this query lies in the approach through which the words ‘free’ and ‘freedom’ are defined. If the word free is taken as being capable of doing what an individual wants and being able to stay independent of anyone or anything else, such a freedom cannot subsist in our world. Man comes in this world and he is compelled to be reliant on it. He is bound to be governed by various phenomena and many systems that exist in the world. He requires to inhale oxygen from some source and to locate foodstuff from others. In addition, there are other human beings that have to be in some sort of connections with him as he lives in a society with a particular social context. In brief, unlimited freedom in unachievable and is a falsehood and can only be found in space.

Nevertheless, there can be marginal freedom. A person can be free to a definite degree. He can be free to decide from amongst the choices set for him by numerous aspects if he has not the choice to choose everything that he desires. Such marginal freedom is defined for an individual by economic, social, political, cultural, religious, and certain other factors. One of the reasons that an individual is affected by all these factors is the method of his sustenance. For a long span of time an individual is greatly reliant on family and other institutions and is trained through them; prior to becoming old enough to make his own decisions, there are already certain beliefs, manners and ideas installed in him. Most of the times, a person’s family religion decides what religion an individual will believe in and follow. It is difficult to find a Muslim in a Christian family and vise versa. Resultantly, a person belonging to a family with a particular religion will not have much freedom to select any of the religions from amongst the religions in the world. Nonetheless, he would have certain amount of freedom and he would have alternative to choose from certain behaviors and beliefs that are in the religion he is nourished in.

The same is true with economic and financial backgrounds. A person related to a particular economic stratum would be bound to choose from the alternatives that are decided for him by that stratum. For example, a poor person going out to shop would not be able to buy everything he wants. His choices will be largely dependent on his financial position. The notion of this sort of relative freedom can be best comprehended through an example – A father along with his son goes to a shop to buy him toy. Certainly, the boy would not have the unconditional freedom to opt any of the toys from the shop as his choice will be reliant on his father’s money. Similarly, father cannot give his son the option to choose any of the toys. As a result he asks his son to opt from among the toys that are priced to a particular amount; for example, Afs 1000. Now, the son can select any of the toys that are rated Afs 1000 or less than it but he cannot opt any toy that is rated above 1000 – that is his relative freedom. In the same fashion, the freedom for an individual is also reliant on political setup. An individual within a country is greatly affected by the policies that are pursued by the political system. There are certain types of political systems within which individuals are given participation and they contribute in the arrangement of the government. The example can be taken of a democratic system. In a democratic system the individuals cast their votes and elect their representatives who then establish government. On the other hand, in a political system like that of dictatorship there is no option for an individual to cast vote and choose from the leaders or parties that are nominated for particular position. Then there are certain other forms of freedoms that are highly reliant on the political system; they are the freedom to scrutinize the government, the freedom to pursue political campaigns and certain other rights.

Even though the complete freedom is not attainable by an individual, it would be better to widen the limits of relative freedom. It would be pleasing for almost everyone to have a wider variety of choices to choose from and different alternatives to opt. Conversely, it is arguable whether all the individuals living in a society can have such a dispensation and whether widening the limits of freedom for an individual affects other individuals unaccommodatingly or not. It is believed that a person’s freedom ends at that point from where another person’s nose starts, which suggests that when an individual’s freedom becomes commotion and problem for others, it stops being freedom. Summarizing this discussion, it can be easily said that it is likely to widen the circumference of freedom for individuals through appropriate economic, political and social systems and religious compassion. It is achievable to let most of the people opt from what is best for them from larger sum of choices, provided that disturbances are not generated for others.