True too. Though I feel in this particular scenario it's...Really unnecessary.

Not OP but I agree with you, just want to nitpick a bit - anarchy isn't absence of rules, it's the absence of state. Early nomads were quite possibly anarchic so you're right.

Absolute freedom is a wild concept, even if it's a construct that can never see fruition. Because our actions don't exist in a vacuum and therefore we're restrained by the consequences. I think Sartre says something along those lines?

Unfortunately, since you are replying for my comment about the summary of OP's writing.

This reply better off be sent towards OP instead of me. I am not the one making this philosophical take, the OP did.

Theres some I agree and some I don't.

Anarchy in a political sense does not mean no laws. It means no vertical hierarchy however people would still be in leadership/managerial positions chosen and rotated and without absolute authority.

Our actually free selves wouldn't create our moral rules, its only a descriptive fact that we experience free will (and this is what we mean when we talk about free will) and its this experience that gives us moral responsibility. It's freedom in the broad sense.

Our consciously free selves is the self that acts in accordance with its higher order principles by reflecting on itself and its actions (or philosophical autonomy). And its this free self that creates our moral rules.

So actual freedom is just possessing free will and conscious freedom is acting in accordance with principles and consequently, the ability to create moral laws.

I'll be discussing these ideas more in future posts if you are interested, but let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything or if there's something I should talk about going forward.

eh, more like the US vs China.

in the US one has freedom to do pretty much whatever (obviously within some bounds) ie you can become rich enough to dismantle society itself and you are 'free' to do so (Jeff Bezos, Musk, Gates etc ie positive freedom: freedom from external interference).

in China one is free to do whatever they want within the context of larger society ie you can become rich but not enough to dismantle society itself (Jack Ma being punished for doing what Gates and Bezos did: vertical integration to the point of being able to effectively blackmail the nation ie negative freedom).

there is no absolute freedom or even a framework for it (even Anarchy has rules just no centralised authority) outside nature.

> It's only the experience of free will (what we mean by free will)

Ugh...Why are you saying what's inside the () as the same thing as you previously said?

> While actual freedom sets the boundaries of our moral community (members must be free and moral rules are limited to those we can freely obey)

What does that even mean? How does freedom sets boundaries of moral community? And how does what is inside the bracket even explains it? Yes Moral Rules are limited to those we can freely obey, even if that is not always the case. But how does it sets boundaries of moral community, how does freedom sets it.

You have the freedom to set boundaries, doesn't mean freedom itself sets it. How does that make sense?

> Conscious freedom (or as philosophers may call it, autonomy) is acting in accordance with our higher order principles. For social contract purposes, this means that our conscious selves would create universal moral rules based on the principles of freedom and reason. Our consciously free selves create and consent to the social contract.

Hence our conscious selves creates boundaries...Which we have the freedom to create.

I am not saying you can't differentiate them, it's just seemingly pointless to do so. And what you said here doesn't seems to actually support your point from my view.