I came across this little article, "More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom"
which demonstrates the change in meaning when someone talks about freedom.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" come from an American song, "Me and Bobby McGee." It comes from the idea that freedom means, "the ability to act without concern of others." We have certain conditions that need to be met before we act. Some of these conditions are very basic, like only purchasing a new gallon of milk when the current one is empty or low. This doesn't mean you aren't free to purchase a second gallon, some people find freezing milk to be a viable option.
The problem is by viewing you're personal conditions as the universal conditions, you are preventing those who have different conditions from exercising their freedom. In essence with this view of freedom, it is only possible to trade freedoms. With this thinking it becomes, I'm trading your freedom to kill me for my freedom to live. This makes freedom the ability to prevent people from doing what you don't want, and is why we see the conclusion found in the article.
But what happens when we remove the freedom to control people?
Can I then prevent you from breathing clean air? No, if you are able to obtain clean air then I would be unable to stop you without employing control. I could make it prohibitively difficult to obtain clean air, this gives us a basis discuss at what point something is prohibiting. But it should be something measurable that has measurable damage.
Can I prevent you from crossing the street? No, but I can make it prohibitively dangerous to do so. So we discuss what it means for someone to be placed in unreasonable danger.
Don't be fooled though, these are not acts of increasing freedom; instead we are looking at where the boundary of control resides. It is asking the question, at what point are you threatening another person's life that you are effectively controlling that person.