I think this argument needs to be looked at from two viewpoints. Firstly, can it be logically consistent to have freedom and peace. Secondly, from experience, is it possible (in the world we live in today) to have freedom and peace.

What constitutes freedom to one person may not be what another would count as freedom. I'm from the UK and I consider myself to enjoy some of the best freedoms in the world. Others would probably disagree, but this all comes down to how you define your freedom; I define my relatively. I enjoy the freedom to do whatever I want in my home. I can read the books I want to read, visit the websites I want to visit, discuss the matters I want to discuss. When outside (in the public domain) I consider the freedoms I am given there to be fair and just when all factors (the right to offend, the right to incite violence, etc) are taken into account. Some people would argue that things such as CCTV cameras, public enclosed space smoking bans, etc, are an infringment on my freedoms; but I disagree. These things need to be placed into context within society, and your freedoms (and rights) need to be weighed up suitably against the freedoms and rights of others. I have the right to offend, but not to be racially abusive. I have the right to wear what I want (but not to be obscene or lucid by wearing nothing at all). I believe my rights and freedoms ARE suitably weighed up against other's rights and freedoms. So, in this respect, I think it is possible to have freedom (at least, a good enough freedom for me, anyway).

I believe that peace is another issue where one person's definition may not match anothers. Some people may refer to peace as there being no conflicts at any given moment. I personally refer to peace as not just a situation in a time and place, but a society in which deplomacy and compromise can always be used instead of the need for any kind of violence. This includes things such as knowing that if I go out walking at night, I have no fear of getting mugged, etc. All these things (external conflicts, a society in which we never need to resort to violence, violence and crime rates within a society) add up to peace in my book. From experience, peace is something that is far harder to come by.

Whilst I feel it's logically possibly to have freedom and peace, I also think that from experience (especially in the modern world) it's extremely hard to come by. Experience shows that nearly all societies have their internal violence and crime problems, as well as far too many big powers (America, the UK) trying to instigate our free and (not very) peaceful societies on others; ironically, through force if neccessary. Unfortunately, I think we've got ourselves into a situation where world conflict can never truly be stopped.

So, in answer to the question. Yes and no. Logically, yes. Realistically, probably not, but we'll still keep trying, and maybe one day we will get there!

Yes. Arguably freedom is only possible with peace.

In peace is true freedom.