Freedom Isn't Free

Freedom isn't free, and in life those who pursue freedom must first put up a fight. All freedom and opportunity require struggle whether it be in powerful words, politics, or the fortitude to evade violence such as Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi chose to do. Also, whether it be within the blood, sweat and tears of an armed war, such as our forefathers in the revolutionary war were subject to or, the armed forces in Nazi Germany to fight for the freedom of the oppressed Jewish race. In this world it is those who struggle the most who will gain freedom, and not just the sole freedom of rights but also freedom of personal desires. Liberty and struggle are a pair never to be separated, not by any weapon or any leader. Freedom will forever cost a hefty price to attain secure and protect, by anyone not just the individual but also the "rabble".

Many attempt to attain their freedoms in the simplest, and most primitive form that they know; blood. Since the beginning of time people have acted in malice toward one another, in influence of a prerogative. Let us recall the oldest of texts, the Bible. In this Bible we read the tale of the "first" murder of man, the murder of Able by his brother Cain over the right of a woman; their sister (Old Testament). Now, maybe this does not remain to be the first homicide but, for a moment consider the Bible just fiction, and that it does not matter whether it truly is the first murder or not. The story of Cain and Able describes the hostility of Man, and the divine embodiment of Lucifer telling Cain to bash the rock over his brother's head. Lucifer represents the ill conscious of man the first instinct; the instinct to overcome by force and by blood. With violence being the primary instinct of man, what "better way" to solve an issue of oppression and adversity? "There's no better way!" To be honest, brute force can in many cases do the job and solve the problem, sometimes even being the most influential of methods. In the heat of war when all are fighting, Nation to Nation and Continent to Continent, strength in the most technological of weapons may be the most powerful. But, are the most powerful of weapons always best for the rest of the world? "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones..."The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." (Einstein). Einstein refers to the creation of the A-Bomb, and even though he helped create the monster, he still felt ashamed as he became enveloped in the shadow of the mushroom cloud lingering over Japan. With advanced technologies "Freedom" could now be won with the delicate stroke of a button under the hands of a child. Though it's not clear who would want freedom to be won by this destruction, surely man could "justify" it. With the ever-growing progress of technology and mans obsession with destruction, "freedom" can not only be won by the press of a button but, the whole world could be laid to waste by the stroke of a button. Remember people like Adolf Hitler "justified" genocide in the name of freedoms and prerogatives. Freedom can won by the act of war, America won "unalienable rights" in 1776 by war, and the slaves were freed by war along with politics (Emancipation Proclamation) (Declaration of Independence). Not all war is detrimental and not all problems can be solved by politics alone, but surely no true righteous freedom can be one by force alone.

Throughout recent history the methods of attaining freedom have been argued by people sharing the same purpose. During the 60's, the civil rights movement clamored on streets, television, radio, and in the backyards of many. Many powerful figures stood against the adversity of unequal rights. Two prominent figures Martin Luther King, a man of patience and moral strength, and Malcolm X an intelligent man, with the anger to kill, clashed in their differing stratagems to secure the same equal rights. Malcolm X malicious and hateful wanted to take America by force, such as the first instinct of man tells him to do, while Dr. Martin Luther King wished for a civil, non-violent protest to bring him to victory. Malcolm X's bloody approach never was as effective as Martin Luther King's passive, but mighty method that accepted all and reigned in the end. Alas, if too much violence were to erupt from the black community a larger conflict with greater consequences might emerge and the reform of civil liberties may have remained at a deadlock. Yes, the man with the biggest stick possesses much potential in gaining freedom, but how long will that stick hold up before it snaps, how long can raw violence and raw violence alone stand up to preserve Liberty? Reiterating a previous point, violence alone can never stand alone without the shield of benevolence and moral fortitude against the masses to gain and preserve a freedom. "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding" (Einstein).

"What