We all know that freedom is a difficult, multi-margin concept, difficult to define in words. We often define it immensely, with being able to decide without constraints, without consequences or without taking responsibility for the actions. But since there is nothing without limits, no relationship that does not condition, no action that does not produce effects, no welfare society without responsibility in actions, what is freedom, something impossible? And what if that were the case, would someone need to guide and channel us? Dangerous effect.

The fact of talking about free education has made me think a lot about this issue, because you have to determine where the real difference is between growing free or not free, the key. The exhortation of answers and the "question" to philosophy, to psychology, to politics and to sociology, this is the image I now make of freedom in my head: freedom, to be.

I believe that to pose this way serves at least to look elsewhere, "limits yes, no limits", "consequences yes, no consequences", beyond the usual questions, the force to try to feed what a child needs to be.

Knowing that a child needs free play, for example, and wondering if he or she has enough time, space and way to do so. Although you will not be able to play at any time or in any space, at least in any way. We give you what you need, but with a limit (i.e. form). For example.

I don't like the excessively utopian sense given to freedom, and as an attempt to give a more real and utilitarian character, I once invented the idea of the instrument of freedom to give people who came to the courses, as an indispensable device that should always be carried in the pocket if you learn to use it correctly.

The tool consists of two cables. One has to connect ourselves to know what we want and the other to the outside to know what that concrete reality looks like. The formula of freedom would be to do what we want or need, within the form and the limits of a concrete reality, aware of the consequences that will bring us what we do, as responsible for the damage we may cause, ready to make a reparation.

You can accept the limits of reality in the sense of the form or nature that this reality has and adapt my will to it. But you can also adapt reality so that what I need is possible. Then, of course, there are limits that need to be overcome and broken, simply because they are contrary to people’s needs. Yes, I am referring to revolution and the legitimate defence of rights. Because wiring to reality must also serve to detect oppression, and in this case freedom serves to emancipate psychologically at least. I know I'm oppressed, and I know who's the one who has me like that.

The consequence is another world; how we use it as a euphemism of grief, how much thirst for revenge, violence and excess morality is behind what we supposedly present as a consequence. The consequence of something is nothing but what we learn through the consequence that gives us an action. Besides, there is an attempt to repair damage generated in the environment according to their age.

It's a very complex issue, I know, but there's a principle that you always have to remember: freedom is about yourself. Because if someone else is going to give it to you, it's a sign that you've taken it away before. It's in us, in our pocket.