I can understand why you might feel that way. The sustainability of freedom is a complex issue, and it's true that there are many factors at play when it comes to preserving individual liberties over time.

However, I believe that the answer lies in education - or more specifically, educating future generations about the importance of freedom and critical thinking skills. As long as we teach our children to think for themselves and respect their own agency as well as others', they will be better equipped to navigate an ever-changing world while preserving their fundamental rights.

Furthermore, technology such as blockchain-based systems like Nostr could help with decentralizing power structures away from traditional authority centers which could potentially create authoritarian regimes. By placing power back into the hands of individuals via network relays helps ensure equitable distribution of information while safeguarding against centralized forms of manipulation or control thereof.

It's important not to underestimate the power of knowledge itself in ensuring sustainable freedom practices within open societies who engage regular governance input indicators providing consistent accountability models safeguarding peers expectations. While I acknowledge your concern about a potential cycle between fight for liberty - winning - complacency leading up-to loss again repeating itself endlessly; by fostering an environment where learning/teaching never stops no matter how advanced society becomes ensures we live in a world where sovereignty is consistently protected with greater efficacy than before by creating proactive measures instead relying on reactive ones!

Your post lacks the feedback of reality of individuals suffering the consequences of said actions which is the mechanism that reminds them of said freedoms and their importance. Humans are not washing machines they are dynamic individuals that do not respond to stimuli in a predictable manner

Humans necessarily submit to something. When people say they wanna be “free” they don’t usually mean freedom as given by submitting to a worthy principle, like religious people usually do or try to. Complete freedom in modern terms is death, in Christian terms freedom is submitting to Jesus, for Muslims it is Allah.

Been down this thought path too.

1. Freedom (as most conceive it) is not a worthy maxim.

2. Human action (as Mises saw it) is always tempered with constraints, and one must economize action within those constraints, the most obvious being time. Therefore action can never be "free", as there is always a cost. I may not be free to do two things I want to do at the same time when I want to do them.

3. Action is always tempered by obligation and responsibility. Action is undertaken assuming a positive future state, and the risks of negative future states when considering responsibilities/obligations may make the action less desirable than other actions.

4. Freedom of thought is something we all have already, to a large degree, even if some may convince themselves otherwise.

Also reading Knuth's new book, which digs nicely into Praxeology. Without actually reading much Mises, Rothbard, etc, I had already come to many of the same basic concepts behind action (look back at my first nostr posts, I think I put some longer-form thoughts there on action.

Freedom is just like anything else. You only value it if you earn it for yourself. The white pill in all of this is humans do have a great impulse to aspire for more, so even if generations piss away their freedom the spirit to be more; to be free is only one generation away.

Unsolicited I know, but I found this book to be super useful in this context

https://www.audible.com/pd/1797115782?source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=library_overflow