If we define freedom in its purest form as
The right to do whatever you want.
then this is clearly a very psychopatic concept. The right to do whatever you want? So if you want to kill, you have that right? If you want to rape, you have that right? Certainly no sane person would support such a concept of freedom.
Clearly, there is a need for balancing this definition with some sense of moral responsibility. Thus, we may redefine freedom as
The right to do whatever you want, as long as you adhere to certain moral principles and responsibilities.
However, the notion of moral principles and responsibilities is well known to be subjective. I am not saying objective morality does not exist - it may very well exist. But humans are factually known to offer different candidates for such an objective morality, and therefore, from the perspective of humans at least, there is no one universally accepted moral codecs.
Therefore, this definition of freedom is entirely subjective, as it depends on whatever ethical framework you subscribe to.
Hence, I ask .... is the notion of freedom entirely subjective in its weaker form and entirely psychopatic in its strong, pure form? And if so, why does that word play such a large role in politics, philosophy, and all other kinds of social discourse, when seemingly it is entirely useless?