There are as many different ideas of freedom as there are people to express them.
Some think it means free to do whatever they like with nobody able to say no, so long as it is legal and/or safe.
Others believe this means they have the right to engage in socially unacceptable behavior, so long as they think it doesn't affect others, even if there are laws against their conduct, with which they personally disagree.
One author, a Church of England priest, university professor, lecturer and novelist of the 19th century, Charles Kingsley famously wrote: "There are two freedoms -- the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."
This sort of freedom presupposes limitations upon activities bounded by laws that constrain certain socially unacceptable actions, but leaves this open to interpretation as to which laws must prevail -- the merely human, carnal-devised laws that often favor the rich, powerful and corporate pseudo-"person" interests over all others, or the spiritual Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgments of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise Creator of heaven and earth.
Human-Devised Counterfeit Freedom
It should go without saying that constrictive and restrictive laws of man, intended solely to restrain or deprive anyone of their lawful use of private property (always for some alleged, but often fraudulent, public "good") are just as often the opposite of true freedom.
This point is entirely missed by everyone who bows down to worship the idol false "savior" of human governmental "authority" that dictates and suspects rather than serves, and takes away, seizes and destroys rather than protects.
Onerous taxation and property seizures for unpaid taxes are an ever-increasing burden, despite the lack of any contract in which anyone volunteers to relinquish their rights to life, liberty and property (the pursuit of happiness being intrinsically bound to the right to own, possess and use one's own property without restraint, harm or loss to government agents claiming to act on behalf of "the People" -- often meaning solely rich corporate interests over those of the common man or woman).
To understand real freedom from all human-devised counterfeits, it is instructive to look at the only instance in which the word is found in the King James English translation from the Old Testament original Ibreyan language.
There the words (Strong's Concordance "Hebrew" dictionary listing #2666) "kafes" (translated "free") and (#2668) "kafesah" (translated "freedom") refer to a slave girl or woman "who has not been ransomed" (Leviticus 19:20).
Scripturally Defined Freedom
The key word "ransomed" (NIV, "redeemed" KJV; #6299, "pedah"), means: "to sever...to release," a word and concept found in dozens of scriptures throughout the Old Testament, where it always means the same thing.
The word commonly translated "free" in sixteen Old Testament scriptures, and "liberty" in one KJV verse ("Jeremiah" 34:16) is related to the two words that appear in Leviticus 19:20 (#2670, "kafasee"), the definitions of which are given (in Strong's) as:
#2666: "to spread loose, figuratively to manumit," #2668: "liberty (from slavery)," and #2670: "exempt (from bondage, tax or care)."
The word "care," in this context, refers to protection or charge, which is a fancy old English euphemism for custody.
The first instance of this last word is found in Exodus 21:2, in reference to a sort of private manservant/employee who was also a Yasraelite.
There the meaning is quite explicit: "...he is to serve you for six years, but In the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."
However, in verses 7-9 the difference with maidservants is: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter."
This presupposes that men with female servants must be assumed to behave toward them as though they were a concubine or a wife (i.e. sex is a given, under these circumstances).
This is apparent by the very next two verses: "If he marries another women, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights [NIV; KJV: "duty of marriage"]. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money" (Exodus 21:10-11).
Fourteenth Amendment Slaves
The payment of money, as a requirement to otherwise obtain freedom from such servitude, is bound up in the meaning of the word translated "redeem" or "ransom," just as the English word manumit means: "to set a slave (or servant) free."
By contrast, the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution of the united States does nothing of the kind.
Instead, it refers to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which is another way of saying ownership of former privately owned slaves is now transferred to the federal government, who are now called: "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the origin of the word "resident," which is a legal way of saying "thing identified," state identification being the current mark of slavery or ownership of a servant, now called a "citizen."
Such citizens do not have constitutionally protected rights, but rather mere "privileges or immunities." The "due process of law" is the means by which these can be taken away or deprived, which does not contemplate nor consider inherent freedoms of the free people who are not such legal kept "persons."
Contractual Slavery -- LawfulInjustice Or Just Legal Fraud?
Any man or woman can contract away their inherent rights, by contractually accepting the modern signs and seals of slavery: state birth certification, social security registration, and identity documents. But there are no laws that require this, any more than any law can force anyone to accept military conscription involuntarily (this requires a voluntary signature and "stepping forward" to accept military orders, after which a private citizen comes under a military jurisdiction and code of conduct to whichever branch of the military they volunteered to join).
The fact this is a contractual arrangement (which cannot be forced, else it is void at law) is seen in the fact that no other branch of the military has any jurisdiction or right to punish, order or command such a conscript, absent mutual and voluntary agreement or consent between all parties (i.e. it is quite impossible for a navy conscript to be considered A.W.O.L. (absent without leave) from the army barracks, or vice versa).
Now you are free to ask yourself what sort of "freedom" it is that holds you liable for property taxes, income taxes, and license fees?
Are you the tax man's slave, or are you actually free?
To put it another way, although there is such a thing as sales tax, are you forced to buy anything in order to pay this tax, or to buy from one jurisdiction rather than another?
Anyone supporting such a concept, you can be certain, is a true enemy of actual freedom.
Do you have the right to freedom and security from governmental intrusions upon your rights, liberty and private property (if you actually have such)?
This is the true scriptural definition of real freedom, which is the right to be left alone in the private enjoyment of your own property, without taxation or other forms of governmental control, restraint or seizure without just compensation.
Scripturally-defined freedom supports this sort of liberty, and condemns anyone who would rob their neighbor via the taxman to pay for their support, leisure, unwillingness to work, or the like.