Absence of interference or impediment. Unfortunately, and as a reflection of the importance which has been attached to ideas of freedom, almost every aspect of its characterization is controversial. Gerald MacCallum has suggested that all statements about freedom can be cast in the same form—A is free from B to p (p stands for any verb of action)—and that disputes about freedom are disputes about the three terms involved, referring to the agent, the obstacle, and the action or state to be achieved, respectively. This may help to diagnose disagreement, and it does provide a formal framework in which various conceptions may be cast, but it does not itself provide a substantive account. There may be one concept of freedom (in this formal sense), but many conceptions of it (that is, many substantive ways of filling out the formula).

Some hold that there are two quite separate questions: What is freedom? Why, if at all, is freedom valuable? Others regard the attempt at separation as implausible. For example, many discussions of freedom make reference to the value of individual choice or autonomy. Is the point of having freedom to enhance choice or autonomy, or is what freedom is the having of choice or autonomy? One approach is to distinguish between freedom in some general sense and particular freedoms (although it is not clear how ‘freedoms’ are to be aggregated). A class of apparently valueless freedoms—for example, to do the many things I am free to do but do not choose to do, or the things I am free to do but lack the resources to do—may be consistent with an explanation of the value of freedom. My wants may change, I may acquire the resources, and the value of freedom in general (it enables choice, it respects autonomy) is compatible with contingently valueless freedoms.

http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom?cat=biz-fin