Quid Est Libertas?

What is freedom? Earlier today, Rick and I were discussing this question.  As it became clear, we have different understandings of what it means to be free, or to be more specific, what it means to be truly free to make a choice.  First I'll explain what I believe freedom of choice means, following this with my understanding of Rick's position.  Then a brief example to clear things up a bit, because it may be a bit confusing.

;)

Andy.  Freedom can be most simply expressed as a person's inherent free will.  It is the ability to choose between right and wrong, or between life and death.  Noone can ultimately take away our freedom. Of course, we speak of such things as the Anti-Smacking Law, or the late Electoral Finance Act as taking away our freedom, however it would be more correct to say that such unjust laws give our freedom new parameters.  In Mel Gibson's timeless epic, Braveheart, William Wallace famously says "they'll never take our freedom".  Towards the end of the movie when Wallace is on the rack being tortured to death, he is given the chance to ask for mercy.  Instead he lets forth the haunting but rallying cry, "FREEDOM!!!" before the executioner's axe swings down.  To William Wallace - at least in this film, freedom was the ability to choose between right and wrong, duty or compromise - whatever the circumstances or consequences might be.

Rick.  Freedom is the ability to be able to make a choice without threat of adverse consequences.  I'm not sure if it would matter whether or not the choice was either logically sound or morally good.  Also, I'm not sure whether the adverse consequences would necessarily have to be initiated by another person or group of people.  Otherwise you could say that because walking off a 20-storey building would bring about adverse consequences, your freedom was therefore impeded.  As you can see, I am not arguing for this position very well, firstly because I don't believe it, and secondly because I don't yet fully understand it.  Rick will no doubt clear up any confusion in his response on his own blog.

Example.  "The soliders" bust into your place and tell you that they're there to enforce a new law.  The new law states that no citizen may hold a religious belief, and further, must officially declare their refutation of any previously held religious convictions - on pain of death.  I think Rick would say that in this situation, you don't have any freedom.  On the other hand, I think that you absolutely do have freedom - even if your choice results in your death.

It may be that we're actually talking about different things but using the same word - I'm not sure.  What do you think?