You're talking about rights. The political philosophy concerned with rights is liberalism. The idea that liberalism and the regard for rights is "freedom" or "liberty" is an interpretation of rights, an interpretation of liberalism. We must be careful to not run too far with an interpretation when it goes far beyond its foundation, which are rights.
The conflicts we see especially in America but also wherever the people recognize rights is imo because we have not formed a canonical enumeration of almost any of our rights. Some exceptions to this are the rights against being murdered and raped and kidnapped or falsely arrested, and the rights to remain silent and to not be coerced into incriminating ourselves, and the rights to a trial by jury and to due process of law, and the rights against having your possessions stolen and being falsely testified against and being slandered or libeled or defamed. There are many other examples where rights have been precisely defined and enumerated, but for the most part rights are not so carefully explicated.
So whenever conflict arises between "liberty" or "freedom" and whatever is posed as their opposites, I recommend pondering that dispute and framing it as a struggle to define our rights, rather than it being between the forces of good against the forces of evil. To perpetuate it as the latter is to presume that an anarchistic liberalism is the correct interpretation of our rights, and that requires additional argument to sustain (and I personally would object that anarchistic liberalism is the correct view).
