To WANT to be free requires an existing, evolutionary, personal experience of actual freedom, that NO human child or adult enjoys.
This doesn’t seem valid.
What evolution seems to have deeply embedded in many levels of our physiology and culture, is something approximating an understanding that freedom without responsibility is ultimately destructive.
Yes, we each need freedom, and unless that freedom is accompanied by a deep commitment to life and liberty for all, in a broad set of social and ecological contexts, then we are conditioned to be deeply suspicious and afraid of it.
Games theory can now quite clearly support this.
If you have a species, like ourselves, in which individual existence requires a cooperative social context, then to unleash a notion of freedom based simply in whim or some perception of short term self interest, is ultimately destructive.
We have many levels of strategies to protect us from that sort of existential risk.
Real freedom demands of us degrees of responsibility for the life and liberty of all sapient entities.
Anything less is ultimately self destructive.
Responsibility is using what abilities we have to make our best attempts at optimising for survival, our own and everyone else’s.
Within that it is doing our best not to unreasonably interfere with the liberty of anyone else.
There is a sense in which we quite likely agree, that if someone is looking to their own long term self interest, then they will not harm anyone else, and they will engage in cooperative actions with others where there is alignment of objectives and values.
I am not talking about any externally imposed responsibility, but the responsibility to action that comes with awareness.
It is the exact opposite of child abuse.
I do not understand how you managed a “newspeak” definitional twist like that.