That was my point, I should have been more explicit. Their definition of freedom was a simple one, of three parts: > 1. You respect property rights 2. You are

That was my point, I should have been more explicit. Their definition of freedom was a simple one, of three parts: > 1. You respect property rights 2. You are allowed to speak your mind 3. You have a right to defend yourself This clearly doesn't give a full and objective account of what the word means, as I'm able to give an example which pits one of the parts against another, leaving us to make a judgement call.