However often the latter definition is used, it is also disagreed with, and for good reason: there is always a ruler, although the ruler may not necessarily be in the form of a person or group of persons. Take, for instance, the human body. It consists of basically three things, as far as ruling powers are concerned: prudence, will, and raw appetite. Raw appetite can be looked at as what we have without reason, will is what can control raw appetite or desires that we have without reason, and prudence is that which provides a choice between will and raw appetite. Prudence has the ability to choose between the two options. This is just one example of how a ruler must always exist, although it may not have a physical form.
Taking this into consideration, the meaning of freedom can further be explored. Perhaps it can be defined as having the liberty to choose who/what the ruler is to be. For, since nothing can exist without having some form of rule, if people are not permitted to choose what the ruling factor is, then that would not be considered having freedom.
Through this, it can be concluded that freedom, possibly, is not simply the ability to be able to do whatever it is that you want, and it is not simply being liberated from the power of another. It can also be concluded that one of the definitions of freedom could possibly be the liberty to choose the ruler. However, it is possible that it is unfeasible to ever obtain the exact definition of freedom.