Absolutely true

There are many questions to be answered, and some answers inevitably lead to more questions. Going naked is certainly an apt metaphor for what has been said in the context of freedom. As young children, we were our innocent selves, unspoiled by what was put upon us as we grew up. From birth, we were molded by the people closest to us, with layer after layer. Did we have a choice? Parents, family and friends, teachers, employers, society and politics have equipped us with a wardrobe that we find difficult to shed. And if we succeeded in freeing ourselves from our protective and at the same time restrictive wardrobe, we might run the risk of getting into some kind of trouble. Even a herd animal adheres to the rules of the herd for its own protection - out of pure instinct. Isn't this where a political system starts? Do we all wear "clothes" out of a survival instinct? Even the capacity of a closet has a limit. To what extent are we able to accept what others want to impose on us? Is our survival instinct disturbed because survival has become a threat? Who is to blame, or is this a question that cannot be answered because we run the risk of getting into trouble?

Dear Dennis, Thank you, this is a very interesting question and I have been thinking. It is a natural person in the sense of a born human being versus a legal entity, which is an imaginary person in the legal sense but not born naturally. In the context of your question, my imaginary vision is of a newborn baby with its blood smeared umbilical cord dangling down on one side of the scales of justice, while the other side holds the judge's wig. The judge's wig represents respect and power, but it also serves as camouflage for judges so that they are not easily recognized outside the courtroom. The newborn baby with its blood smeared umbilical cord speaks for itself. Ellen Sydney, Australia