Kinda depends on your definitions and constraints I guess. There are lots of examples of a "negative peace" out there - oppressive and dictatorial and all that fun stuff - so that seems like the more realistic manifestation.
But you could imagine a sort of "positive peace" as well, created by voluntarily adhering to a moral standard or lifestyle that would sort of obviate freedom as we know it.
But again, it's like are we at 100 Freedom/0 Peace, or is the split 80/20, and what does each one actually mean, and so on. For me it's harder to take peace seriously because my knee-jerk reaction is to say "well it's just no war lol", but defining it as like the total elimination of suffering gives it more weight.
Freedom, imprisonment, peace, and fried chicken are all just illusions. Onions is what should be desired by everyone.
[spoiler][b]YOU WILL NEVER REACH TRUTH [/b][/spoiler]
Depends, if you take freedom to the extreme then hell no. There would be no freedom there would only be a large unstoppable group taking what they want.
Also on the other extreme of pure peace no freedom, I think I’d want to top myself, being told what to do and when to do everything. No thanks.
I’ll take the 50 50 ish blend we all know well 🤗
I would rather live in a post apocalyptic world
Because everything’s simpler :)
And your free to do whatever you want though some things may cost your life
Like messing with the roving bandits ;)
And the serene peace of listening to them burn
What it’s karma ;)
There was a story I read of a warlord who wished for an end to the constant wars of his realm. For peace.
The demons granted it by ending all other life, leaving him alone on a dead plane.
That sounds nice.
I'd rather have both. But as long as the far left/right continue to fight with the rest of us stuck in the middle and there are idiotic/crazy leaders in charge of countries like China, US, NK and Russia. I don't see true peace ever being a thing.