It is a common misconception that those in power necessarily have more freedom than their less powerful colleagues. Intuitively, the king of a country has the freedom to act in more ways than the peasant, the rich have more options than the poor, the slave owner governs while the slave is governed, and a government official often goes beyond the laws he drafts for the people. . However, there is a hidden assumption in this way of thinking: that freedom is proportional to the quality of life. From a pragmatic point of view, most would choose the life of the king over that of the slave, the rich over the poor, the slaveholders over the slaves, or to prefer legal status over law-abiding status, simply because the the quality of life of one is much greater than the quality of life of the other. This is not the same as having greater freedom. I argue, in fact, that if one group has a greater amount of freedom than the other, it is small and difficult to decide who has more freedom. In this discussion, I will use liberty and liberty interchangeably, with the intended meaning of both as that which one is able and permitted to choose to do. For example, this year I can and am allowed to vote in congressional elections, so I have the freedom to vote. However, even if I can set fire to an orphanage, I am not allowed to do so, so I have no freedom or liberty to commit arson. Furthermore, I will make a distinction between freedoms and what I call mini-freedoms. A freedom is what one can or is permitted to do by law or in public. A mini-freedom is what can be done at the level of gestures, speech, habits, posture, eating style; it's anything about an individual overlooking... half of the paper... implicitly or explicitly, certain biases, so we can't hold them accountable for acting in accordance with those biases. If they were to break the law, however, we have no choice but to hold them accountable. In his introduction to The Philosophy of History, Hegel writes that “world history is nothing other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.” Perhaps, then, the next stage of historical (or political) evolution will be the recognition of our lack of freedom at such a fundamental level as the way we speak, eat, or think. Because if these mini-freedoms could be achieved, then arbitrary boundaries of race, class, gender, sexuality, age, cultural heritage, political affiliation, geography or language would be lost along with the rest of the multitude of stereotypes based on the fact that we are all slaves of an unknown ruler who commands even the slightest movements.