Interesting that much of the discussion here centers around what other things in our lives are connected to freedom (references to the Armed Forces, God, what we are compelled to do “in its affect” etc) ... rather than the nature of the word itself.
I think the philosophical implication of the word is that Freedom separates you from something. From tyranny, from pain, and so forth.
Freedom only exists due to its counterpoint.
Even in ideas like “Freedom of Speech”, freedom is separating you from something that, though maybe not stated is “understood” , that being the possibility of being oppressed or prevented from speaking your mind.
Look at it this way ... if you lived alone on a desert island, would the concept or value of Free Speech apply? I don’t think so, it would be nonsensical ...
it would be moot. You would not have the reference or thing that freedom is separating you from.
It’s a bit of the
“if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make any sound?” question. That is; How can you know something without “it”? ... “it” being the counterpoint.
The counterpoint to “no one around to hear it” is being there. That is how you know.
The counterpoint to Freedom is not having it ... that is how you know what freedom is.
The OP asked
... why do you think you have freedom? Can you point to something that provides you with this freedom? ...
If I have Freedom it is because of the possibility of not having it. And while that sounds self-referential, kind of a Strange Loop, it is not a definition that markm2151's question asks for, but how it comes to me ... and it comes to me by way of separating me from the alternative.
Can I point to something that provides me with it? ... to understand the possibility of the counterpoint to something, I must have human intellect. And so, Freedom is provided by the mind.