The consensuses governing the essence of all freedoms require concessions that necessitate limitations; this is not a paradox, but a critical requirement to prevent the growing confusion between liberty and profligacy. Morality isn’t the sole province of humanity alone, and the providence of any perceived free will can’t invariably approve independence due to the consequence of increasing restraints. Free will is an artifice that requires the totality of everyone’s participation and a morality that justifies the dilemma of opposing moralities. The strictures of contemporary society limits free will to permitting the very thing it’s trying to honour, but the activity of human behaviour sanction the obligations of force, in an inherent state, to protect, to defend, and to enforce: this is not freedom but a facsimile of privilege called democracy. True free will and the freedom that permits the effects of autonomy cannot live in a society populated with varying moralities. Indeed, people may possess the freedoms of choice, belief, and lifestyle; however, due to the intrinsic variations of human appearance and conduct, free will does produce prejudice and bias: no current ideology exonerates and emancipates using absolute objectivity. Until a complete ideological morality encompasses such diversity without force, the only freedom humans have right now is the freedom to be human.