By the logic you use here, there is no such thing as freedom. There are always limits imposed on people by others, situations, society, nature, and physics. The

By the logic you use here, there is no such thing as freedom. There are always limits imposed on people by others, situations, society, nature, and physics. Therefore, there is no actual freedom for anyone. It seems to me that invalidating the notion of freedom might not be what you set out to do. Instead, you're trying to make a point wherein people are only truly free if they have some options that are favorable. Do I interpret you correctly? In that case, what's "favorable"? Who defines and judges such things? What standards are used? I know people who are capable and skilled and thus offered highly remunerative positions that they don't want to take because of who is hiring - is that favorable or unfavorable? Reasonable arguments for both spring readily to mind. Are we to use an individual's personal preferences only?