No, in no way is freedom free. No matter how you look at it, define it or shape freedom comes at a price. Sometimes it is personal, political, financial or sociological. freedom may cost life, money, standing or the entire culture of a people, but there is always a cost. the best definition I had ever heard was this: freedom is responsibility. To be free you must be responsible for your actions.
Think about it and you will see the wisdom in that statement.
What is free" not in terms of freedom, but just as a concept. To say something is free, in my mind, is that there is no strings attached. There is no cost, no adverse reaction will occur. Thinking in terms of a product that means that someone is just giving me something, say a candy bar. A truly free candy bar would mean I don't have to pay money for it, it is perfectly safe to eat, it was purchased legally and handed over willingly out of a sense of charity. how often does that actually happen in life? Not that often.
Every action in life has a consequence. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but there is always a consequence. In its own way, its a paradox. Freedom must have a cost, without that cost, freedom is meaningless. Cost gives freedom its value. Consequence and accountability is both the joy and pain of freedom. We all experience this as we grow into adulthood and thus earn our freedom. We yearn to be treated like adults, seeing freedom in that goal, but when it is achieved and we make a mistake that costs us dearly, who among us have not wished to be child again and have someone else clean up the mess.
Responsibility is why animals cannot be free. It is what makes the Peta argument illogical or at least the argument as it had been explained to me, that animals deserve the same rights and privileges under the law as humans do. how could that work, since animals are incapableof personal responsibility, thus not being able to pay the price of freedom. When a human kills another human or even an animal without licence or cause there is a consequence and freedom can be revoked. however, if a lion eats a gazelle or a wolf eats a rabbit that's survival. If they were considered free citizens though, it would be murder. Do you see the problem and the price of freedom.
Freedom requires justification and defense. It must be defended zealously and questioned with the same passion before being granted. to have true freedom a person must completely know that he or she alone bares the responsibility of his or her own actions. The buck stops no where else. When such a price is demanded, how could anyone argue that freedom is free?