So, let's compare:
If you have the right to vote, if you live in state with a working separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions and if you have the right to emigrate, I think you are free.
First, let's understand what rights are. A right exists between two or more people who agree a specified behavior should be shared equally. If I say, "Hawker, I want the right to free speech," I must then say, "I will also allow you free speech if you promise not to impede mine." You say, "Okay that sounds reasonable," and thus, a right is born. As more people recognize these rights we share and decide they, too, would like these rights, so these rights spread and become a societal norm; the majority, then, has power over the minority, who would say "I don't want the right to free speech"; since most of us like this right, we typically make up the majority and overrule what they want.
Now, let's take emigration, for example. The state, in a hypothetical situation, has decided that nobody can emigrate or immigrate due to terrorist threats; all borders are regulated shut and everyone is on a temporary no-fly list, except for certain important members of the state. Despite individuals agreeing that there is a right to emigrate, they had this right artificially removed by an external source of power. The fundamental purpose of a right has been tarnished; we can no longer call this a right, though we commonly believed it to be before; we must now call this as it is properly identified, a privilege. You had the privilege to emigrate, and it was taken away. Ergo, if the state controls the borders, and can decide, without individual approval, to close those borders, you do not have the right to emigrate, you are privileged to. This applies today to no-fly lists; if it's possible to have your right to flight taken away, you never had a right to flight to begin with, you had a privilege to use the airlines. A right which can be taken away is a privilege.
With this distinction in mind, we can name many privileges which are egregiously referred to as rights; the privilege to free speech, until the state needs you silenced; the privilege to bear arms, until the state needs you disarmed; the privilege to emigrate, until the state needs you to stay put; the privilege to occupation, until the state needs you in the military. We can go on and on, but the basic idea is there; if you can call these rights, I can call a swine handsome.
Anyway, because we cannot practice this philosophy on our own, we must succumb to the whims of whomever does have this freedom, i.e. the republic in the case of America, our politicians. If they say, "Killing this nation's soldiers and civilians and stealing their oil is right", or in our case, if a single man in a suit says it's okay, then it is okay. Do you object to murder? Too bad; you have no privilege to practice ethics, and whether or not you believe killing is wrong, you will be paying for it. Do you object to theft? Too bad; you have no privilege to decide if you'll be stolen from or not. Do you object to threats? Too bad; you will be threatened if you fail to comply. Because these decisions on ethics can only be made by the state, you are crippled to make decisions on what is right and what isn't. You have no right to be a human being under these standards, as you are stripped of your right to be virtuous; you have only the privilege of being a citizen, and you are as vicious as the men who represent you.
So what is freedom? Simply put, freedom is to have rights, including the right to grant them, or not.
