It's an impossible question you are asking people to answer. It's all objective. What one person considers as freedom may not be considered as freedom by another. 

Additionally, many of the questions you posed are arguments against democracy. Namely, the 51% voting to kill the 49% style question you posed in your article. It's a tricky series of questions you have asked.

First, what is freedom?

Freedom is the successor to free will.

Defining freedom is simple if you have the starting point of free will. Freedom and free as a word has the richest etymology by far out of all other words, I won't say anything else about its history. So, moving on, freedom is inherent in owning oneself, or in other words being in control over oneself, or having free will. If you have no free will you cannot even form an argument for that position since its obviously not your will, and therefore a performative impossibility. Self-ownership and being one's master means you cannot invalidate anyone else self-ownership or right to master themselves. If you do, you performatively agree that others can do the same which is the foundational logic for self-defense, as you have been contracted to void the other persons right to master themselves the moment they initiated the same to you.

So freedom is not a matter of belief or interpretation, freedom is free will.

The second question needs a much more pointed premise for me to answer it to the effect you wish for, so let me rephrase the question so as to remove all ambiguity and chance for interpretation:

Is it acceptable for people to violate the inherent free will of others?

Absolutely no, it's unequivocally never acceptable for people, regardless of how many or through whichever scheme to violate others free will.

Why did the question need to be repurposed?

Because I believe in such a scenario, that if everyone agrees to be controlled, by mob rule or any other form, they should be able to do so because consent makes such scenario exceedingly acceptable. Of course, if people change their mind, they still have the free will to do so and at that point, if the other people don't respect that choice then it's completely wrong and evil and that person has every right to take that violation as a positive contract that stipulates the other party as without free will and then anything that person wishes to make that other party do, such as pushing flowers from a shallow grave, they have every right, every justification, all that is good and correct, to do so.

The flipside is obvious then. We have all right to do as we wish, its inherent in our makeup, our constitution, we have free will to chose and do as we please. Then, there aren't any who have more or fewer rights or greater or lesser rights.

Now for the home run.

If you are part of a society that you consented by your own choice (not under any kind of duress) and all was disclosed (not under any kind of deception) and in such a society you agreed to follow the rules voted on by the majority then there's nothing wrong with that, granted that the rules don't force anyone, but everyone chooses to follow them, as otherwise forcing others is the same as offering them a unilateral contract signed and dated by you stating that you agree to be forced by them HOWEVER they wish, and stipulating that should you resist they have every right to force you even more willingly.

To wit, if you want to find out what actual government is, or Self Govern, go to www.annavonreitz.com and sink your teeth in the beef that is 1.3 k articles deep, discussing the difference between what Government is and what we think, or believe, the government is.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://steemit.com/@partiko-android)