SovereignLife Freedom Blog

If you were to go out on the street and take a sampling of public opinion as to the importance of, and nature of, freedom – you would get starkly different responses.

Of course most people, if asked, would say they are in favour of freedom. The trouble starts when you ask people to define freedom. You see freedom means entirely different things to different people. Some people will talk of freedom of speech. Others will talk of freedom from hunger, or fear. Yet others will urge you to take up arms for freedom.

President Obama talks of freedom through security.

We all want freedom, but we are unable to come up with a working definition of it – and hence can never agree on what it is we actually want or support. And in any other realm of human experience such a lack of clear definition would cause utter confusion.

If we couldn’t agree on the precise weight of a kilogram or pound, we’d be in constant arguments with our greengrocer. If we couldn’t agree on the precise speed of 50 mph or 100 km/hour – we’d be taking traffic cops to court over arbitrarily fining us for “speeding”. If we couldn’t agree what a dollar was, then we’d never be able to buy or sell anything.

Clear definitions of terms are essential if we want to get on harmoniously and avoid conflict. But the lack of such a definition for the word freedom is at the root of most of our social problems.

This dilemma was very much on the mind of Andrew J Galambos when he came up with a definition of freedom as follows:

“Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e. 100%) control over his own property.”

So far so good. I imagine many readers of this post will find themselves agreeing with that in some way. But others will note that in order to fully appreciate and understand this definition it is further necessary to define property. And Galambos defines it as follows:

“A volitional being’s life and all non-procreative derivatives thereof.”

He went further to identify three types of property:

• Primordial Property: A volitional being’s life
• Primary Property: The intangible forms of property (thoughts, ideas, actions etc.)
• Secondary Property: The tangible forms of property (home, car, iPod etc.)

So, using Galambos’s definition of freedom – for you and me to be free requires that we have 100% control of our actual life (primordial property), our mental creations (primary property), and the stuff we have physically created or purchased from someone else (our secondary property).

Now stop and think for a while what that definition of freedom means in the real world. Apply it to any social, economic or political issue you can think of and see if it doesn’t clarify it enormously.

Here’s a few practical examples:

Is murder acceptable? Obviously not because to take another’s life is to take their primordial property.

Is theft acceptable? No, because it involves taking a person’s primary or secondary property.

Is income tax acceptable? No, because to take money off one person to fund the needs of another is theft – and theft involves taking a person’s property without their consent.

Should drugs be illegal? No, because what you or I decide to put into our own body (our primordial property) is no one else’s business.

You get the idea. And if you have a pet moral issue that perplexes you, then I urge you to clarify it by relating it to these definitions of freedom and property – and see what you come up with.

I read Sic Itur Ad Astra (This is the way to the stars) by Galambos back in 2000, and it was a truly mind-opening experience. Now I’m reliving that mental stimulation by listening to the recently released audio lectures by one of his associates in the 60s and 70s – Jay Snelson – in the V-50 Lectures, and highly recommend them to anyone who truly values freedom.