Of course, in any system, ones likelihood varies by whom one is, and what ones race, income, etc., is. Certainly an (innocent) person who is wealthy is more likely to be attacked by authorities than someone who is poor. An (innocent) person who is political is more likely to be attacked than one who is not. Especially today.
This is a measure of how free an innocent person is. Less attack = more freedom. For criminals, the reverse is true: the poorer and more criminal one is the more likely they are to be attacked by the police and by criminals. For criminals this is desirable. Criminals should be constantly afraid of attack. The merely poor should not.
With criminals, less attack = less freedom, since they cannot control themselves and their actions are tyrannical to everyone else. To create freedom one must constantly attack criminals.
When a state protects the
Civilization (or more properly order) is built on having someone always above and someone always below—someone always in and someone always out.
So it isn't a matter of equality. That is impossible and leads to societal decay. It is a matter of being a member of the in group. Also, because of the diversity of human populations, who is the criminal is not random, so equal outcome impossible, and therefore minorities equally voting for Republicans also impossible.
Now of course, if you are the one receiving end of the jackboot you do not perceive yourself to be free, even if you deserve the jackboot you are receiving. From your perspective the system is unjust. The fact that the systems preservation aligns against you does nothing to persuade you that there is something wrong with you—oh no, it persuades you that there is something wrong with it. Even if you are parasitical you will view the system, not yourself, as the problem, since parasites evolved for their own self-preservation, and you, being a parasite, what to preserve yourself.
So freedom is always the perception of being on the inside. This is perceptual freedom.
Conversely, anyone on the outside will perceive themselves to not be free. This means Jews, all intellectuals (since they are bullied), all criminals, all mentally ill people, all people who perceive themselves as victims, and all groups that can be emotionally propagandized into perceiving themselves as victims.
Democracy cultivates perceptual freedom through the cognitive trick of voting. You, having voted, feel responsible for your government. Since everyone else also voted you feel that they are oppressing you when they vote foolishly. This conceals the truth that democracy is always run for the benefit of elites. It directs your anger towards your neighbors and away from the people who are actually in charge. It allows them to conceal their influence. So perceptual freedom is also a democratic trick.
America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. This would indicate that America has the least concrete freedom, either through locking up people falsely, or having insane levels of crime, or both.
But notice that Americans seem to think they have the most freedom out of any society on Earth. Though cracks are appearing in the façade, they have perceptual freedom.
Intellectuals, being high IQ, can never really experience freedom, since they can see the arrangement of imperium in imperio as the façade that it really is. So they attack society as a kind of revenge for being the out-group. Most philosophy can be seen as an exercise in vengeance against playground bullies.
Thus intellectuals tend to be enemies of civilization, since they, being the out-group never experience freedom, and like a bullied child, if they cannot have it no one else can. The average person, being a cognitive miser, can have this, so he seeks ignorance and takes the blue pill.
So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough? Basically, what if the solution lies in creating a more convincing perceptual freedom? One that fools even intellectuals?
What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?
In a patchwork people separate themselves by identity. The very existence of a political system that proclaimed itself "libertarian," "socialist" or whatever, draws like-minded people from all around and repels people who disagree. A sorting effect occurs. The patchwork becomes a series of in-groups.
So a patchwork, if every patch were democratic, would create the highest perceptual freedom. The great diversity of patches, combined with the voting mechanism, would exacerbate perceptual freedom to ultra-matrix style levels of supreme delusion!
Delusion in the sense of believing that one is free, believing that one is a participant in his government as a voter.
But this still requires a feedback mechanism. Glitchiness comes from the failure of the Cathedral to interact with the real world. How to overcome this? Well, the solution lies in the patch itself. Voting with your feet enforces a minimum amount of reality to effect the patch since local elites operating under the imperium in imperio nature of local patch democracy are still local. Their investment is tied up with a place, and that place, to give them power, must work.
So even patchwork democracy is better at delivering perceptual freedom, (and probably actual freedom) than the current system, since elites, being local, must care.
Now one may say, "but that's the way it is already." No. It is not. The trick would be to empower minorities, (in the sense of small groups), not majorities, and to put the small radical groups in charge of their patch. If this could be pulled off, it would serve as a transitional form of government going from democracy to monarchical/CEO patchwork.