1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
We are not free. When the government changes the law it doesn't ask for our permission. The people of Britain don't get a say in how they're controlled and suppressed.
We're told we're a democracy because every four or five years we get to choose a government, but only those who have the best publicity and the biggest advertising budget are elected and they're majorly unaccountable for the duration of their term in power. Whatever laws the government wants to pass it passes regardless of what any of us think.
If you lie in court you are sent to prison, but if you lie to try and win control of the country you get away with it.
Nick Clegg openly admitted and apologised for lying to millions of students about tuition fees, yet he continues to be deputy PM in one of the most powerful nations on Earth.
I don't seem to remember anybody electing those in the House of Lords either. They're responsible for making laws, but aren't elected by the people the laws control but by the Monarchy and the PM. That's hardly democratic.
And now, MP and shadow minister for public health, Diane Abbott wants the government to force more tyrannical laws on the people - whether they want it or not.
Hold on a second. What does it have to do with her or the government how much people drink or eat?
We all contribute to the NHS and we all deserve to use it for health related reasons. If we don't, do away with it and let us use that money for private health insurance instead.
Minimum prices will only hit the working class, not the people who want to pass these suppressive laws.
It's a stealthy, under-the-radar attempt at an alcohol prohibition amongst those with less money - by making it unaffordable and thus unattainable.
If the government thought alcohol and fast-food was that bad, they'd outlaw it.
So why won't they? Is it pressure from the manufacturers? After all they'd benefit from an increase in price but not a ban.
Is it because they're only trying to dissuade the working class from drinking because it makes them less productive, or because the health problems weigh too heavily on the health service, but still fancy a tipple themselves?
Or is it because they think they can get away with stealth taxes but never would with an outright ban?
So let's have a referendum on the matter. Let's ask the simple question: should we have a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol?
If the popular answer is 'yes' I'll eat the laptop I'm typing these words on - after all, who in their right mind would vote for increasing the price of anything at all?
People should be able to live how they want, not how some illiberal nanny state that thinks it knows best and forces laws onto its unwilling subjects wants them to.
While we're at it, let's ask the people if they still want this government in power. Now that would be democracy in action.
This is the government that ignored a long-term study that found cannabis isn't all that dangerous - not half as much as alcohol and tobacco anyway - and that banned 'legal highs' following just two deaths (in comparison, 22 people drowned in the bath in Britain in 2008).
I don't smoke, I don't take drugs and I very rarely drink. But I strongly believe that, as long as you're not harming anybody or anything, you should be able to do what you like with your own money.
That doesn't mean people can pour out of clubs and attack people without repercussions and I'm not talking about people on benefits either (you can't be free if you're dependent on hand-outs).
But Joe Bloggs, sat at home with a nice, cold pint after a hard week's work shouldn't have to re-mortgage to pay for it.
Let us decide how much we eat/drink/smoke, and let a free market decide the cost - and nobody else.
Oh, and by the way, sitting sedimentary at your desk on your computer isn't good for your heart. You owe me 50p.