Executive director : R. LEONARD, Professor, Agrege in Liberal Arts

The Article 4 of the French Declaration of Human Rights and the Citizen of the 26 of August 1789 stipulates: "Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has limits only to the extent of those which ensure that the other members of society obtain the pleasure of these same rights. These limits can be determined only by the law."
The Article 5 further claims:
"The law has the right to proscribe the actions harmful for society. All that is not forbidden by the law cannot be prevented, and no one can be constrained to do what the law does not specifically order."

Resulting from this, the mechanisms and factors that are restricting liberty must imperatively evolve or a dangerous drifting will occur.
Liberty obeys to the theory of closed spaces: during all his life, every individual finds himself/herself prisoner of an undetermined number of circles (his/her mother's womb, family, religious, social, spiritual, Gnostic, and many other circles). The progressive conquest of each of these spaces contributes to the acquisition of a new degree liberty.
However, we notice that the rapid evolution of human civilization leads to a fulgurating development of technologies. Man himself -apt to understand throughout analysis, deduction, synthesis and intuition? is a creature that the Universe has created in order for him to discover it. But the expression of this qualitative potentiality, although inducing ecstasies, inevitably leads to uncontrolled drifting. Science does not always lead, as it should, to more liberty and the law creates rules that are a hindrance to the expression of liberty. Moreover, the rights of the different countries on the planet are not all on the same path. Populations have an individual and ideal conception of liberty: it is an irrevocable and absolute right. This notion seems even more idealistic because of the impressive evolution of the world population's density, which constitutes a powerful and inevitable inhibitor. Society itself creates its own inequalities and injustice, source of ongoing conflicts. Poverty and wealth gaps, religious intolerance, racism, political scissions that are purposely maintained, power or absence of power, propriety, prevarication, harassments of any sorts, rapes, wars and terrorisms, all are an insult to liberty.

So the questions are:
· Should we create laws for everything and constrain always more?
· Should we restrain the spaces and degrees of liberty?
· Should we definitely annihilate the "raison d'être" of human being, that to which he tends in time and spirit?
· Should states take alone the responsibility of human species by definitely confiscating the absolute individual liberties, in order to favor a qualitative development of a few privileged at the expenses of the multitude?
· Will man be capable of transcending his genome by freeing himself from the relation prey-predator that reigns within him, because of his very nature since the beginning of times, and that leads him to dominate, possess and exclude?
· Isn't the inevitable inequality at birth contradictory with the notion of liberty itself?
· Is freedom the true goal of democracy of just a lure to manipulate people?
· Can democracy exist without guaranteeing liberty?
· Is liberty an utopia, a purely theoretical view for philosophers yearning for social morality?
· Has liberty only existed in the mind of a few lunatic or visionary individuals?

Such questions never found answers considering the institutional basis that allowed for managing the rise of civilization. Prehistoric man gave birth to the historical man. The 16th century Renaissance helped the Western world to take a new rise by returning to antique sources. The 20th century Renaissance freed itself from this umbilical cordon and now desperately seeks for new references. Dictatorships, oligarchies, democracies, plutocracies, all failed. Therefore, 21st century man must change or disappear.

In this regard, the Commission has started a fundamental debate on this notion of liberty, which we will not be able to show off hypocritically anymore as a virtual and fallacious 'banner' on the facades of our states' palaces that manage the planet.
Bases are to be redefined. The past can no longer guarantee the future by playing with words that have been too much abused for demagogic purposes.

We need to imagine a better and true world.