So do I.

You went on to restrict your definition of "freedom" to "total freedom", which is in fact anarchy, as you point out.

I maintain that a free society, as opposed to an anarchic one, has a set of guiding rules developed by and with the consent of the governed, often called a "social contract", from which the specific rule of law is derived.

There really is no freedom without law. There's only the kind of slavery that occurs when a stronger citizen can impose his will on others. He is "free"; they are not.

Even among those who flee organized society to get away from the rule of law (seen by them as "government regulation" rather than "social contract"), one runs the risk of falling under the thrall of more than a little slavery to the whims of nature, which civilization is not there to mitigate, and the tyranny of isolation and addiction, which social contact is not there to correct. I think of the habits of self-medication among the socially isolated: violence, sexual exploitation and substance abuse. To define this as "freedom" doesn't make it a particularly attractive proposition. In frontier outposts established solely for commercial exchange or military necessity, one finds more fighting, whoring and drunkenness of various sorts than among settlements that bring additional established units of the social contract with them.

Freedom requires structure if it isn't to devolve into one kind of tyranny or another. It also requires that those seeking freedom determine the structure best suited to their own social contract, and not have to settle for the structure that another culture requires them to adopt.