The Ethics of Absolute Freedom
This conception of happiness, however, raises our third question: How ought we to act towards other people? If the source of our value and nature is wholly internal, what obligations can I have to other humans? Can I freely and authentically choose to kill my mother, as Orestes does? Can I choose to be a murderer, a thief, or an exploiter of humanity? Is it true, as some Existentialist were fond of pointing out, that if God is dead then all things are allowable? The ethics of absolute freedom, it would seem, are not absolutely free. To be free we must take on the responsibility of choosing for all men, we must desire and work for the freedom of all men, and we must create ourselves within the context of the relationships and obligations we have to other people.Is the ethic of absolute freedom a portrait of human greatness? Human excellence often defines itself in the struggle against the forces that oppose human flourishing. Existentialism attempts to find happiness, value, and meaning in a modern world characterized by isolation, in authenticity, and absurdity. It attempts to see what human excellence can consist of if we find ourselves to be islands of subjectivity in an otherwise objective world. You will certainly want to ask if this is in fact what we find ourselves to be, but can it be doubted that the Existentialist attempt to find meaning in the face of absurdity exemplifies the basic drive that all portraits of human excellence must embody.
Responsibilities of Freedom
Whenever one begins to write down "rules" and develop structures and social theories invariably a cry comes out about limiting freedom. This cry is often ignored, we do not wish to ignore it, it deserves an answer, though not a particularly polite one.
Individualism Is Oppression
Freedom, along with many other words we use in political debate, has been twisted by rhetoric and spin to the point that it is almost simply propaganda. The "freedoms" we talk about almost invariably require that others provide for our actions. We rarely speak of the freedom to walk down the street, or the freedom to grow our own food, we often speak of the right to housing (which must be built) or food (which must be harvested), or this that or the next thing. Insofar as our "freedoms" require the work of others they are not
libratory, they are oppressive, they are privileges, not rights, and in the interest of justice they require our equitable participation and labor. To attempt to disclaim responsibility for this work, for the labor which must be expended to have "freedom" by necessity denies freedom to others, it is no less oppressive then slavery or war and it is in fact the tacit demand for both.
Responsibilities of Freedom
Whenever one begins to write down "rules" and develop structures and social theories invariably a cry comes out about limiting freedom. This cry is often ignored, we do not wish to ignore it, it deserves an answer, though not a particularly polite one.
Individualism Is Oppression:
Freedom, along with many other words we use in political debate, has been twisted by rhetoric and spin to the point that it is almost simply propaganda. The "freedoms" we talk about almost invariably require that others provide for our actions. We rarely speak of the freedom to walk down the street, or the freedom to grow our own food, we often speak of the right to housing (which must be built) or food (which must be harvested), or this that or the next thing. Insofar as our "freedoms" require the work of others they are not
libratory, they are oppressive, they are privileges, not rights, and in the interest of justice they require our equitable participation and labor. To attempt to disclaim responsibility for this work, for the labor which must be expended to have "freedom" by necessity denies freedom to others, it is no less oppressive then slavery or war and it is infact the tacit demand for both.
Responsible Freedom:
We could claim the right to the freedom to do whatever we are capable of, and some people do this. It would be difficult to argue that claiming the right to all that is possible is in any way conducive to justice.If it were so injustice would be impossible, and it would not be an issue. This is clearly not the case.
What then do we have the just freedom to do? What actions does justice grant us the right to perform?Can we construct a just freedom which is not, in fact, a responsibility as well? We have the just right to the freedom and means to perform at least as much labor as we require providing for ourselves as well as the freedom to demand and hold responsible all others to the same criteria. We further have the just right to not be oppressed, not oppress, and not permit oppression. It is commonly claimed that choice is necessary for freedom, and this is to some extent true, but only within limits. Are we free to choose not to be free? Are we free to choose not to respect the freedoms, rights, and responsibilities of others? Clearly we can not justly claim boundless freedom of choice, we must constrain our right to choice to the point that they do not infringe upon the freedoms or rights of others, either though action or inaction, and that this responsibility extends beyond the obvious to the consequences of all which we actively or tacitly support. It is a common tenant of law that malice is more damnable then neglect. Justice leaves us no such sanction; inaction is only possible to the dead. Only the ridiculous oversimplifications of law allow for the assertion that one did nothing. If one simply breaths and eats one requires that food is grown. By consuming that which has been made available through human labor, one becomes fully culpable for the
consequence of the act of non-contribution.
Since we are justly responsible for what we do, and to equitably contribute to what is done for us, and as we must eat, breathe and have shelter in order to live, justice then require that the living must act and contribute. We must therefore accept that there is no just freedom without this responsibility, that "freedom" without this responsibility is not freedom at all, but the act of enslavement of others. To any question of "rules" we should then ask: Is this rule non-conducive to justice? Can we honesty act contrary to this rule without contributing to the oppression of others? If we can not answer these questions in the affirmative then we must accept that these "rules" are statements of responsibilities, responsibilities which we already have, weather we have been living up to them or not.

Conclusion
God given freedom - given to all mankind means ZERO limits in anything you ever want to do or however you want to do it. Freedom means also to move freely around all planets, free of borders, free of administration, free of visa or other requirements. Freedom is the result of God's infinite and eternal love - at home in God all will enjoy eternal freedom. Any restriction of freedom is the result of ego only and needs to be dissolved. Any - even smallest restriction of God given freedom is always against God. All are free by divinebirthright - all will be free when ever they decide to return home. At home in God no single person ever can restrict freedom of anyone as freedom is above human laws. Divine freedom eternally and infinitely is always above all human laws - anyone to select his freedom and making use of his freedom always benefits form God's help, grace and mercy - provided he achieves his
freedom with love and only love.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.