There are two essential points to consider when thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of freedom. The first is that freedom is a continuum, not an absolute. If you think about the degree of freedom enjoyed by all the people in the world, you will come up with a spectrum which has, for instance, a wealthy and unattached American or European at one end of it, and a prisoner in a North Korean gulag at the other. Neither of these individuals, however, is completely free or completely unfree; and it may not be obvious where on the line you should draw the division between freedom and unfreedom.
The second point is that, in a society, the freedom of one individual may result in the unfreedom of another. If I am free to hold loud parties that last all night, my next-door neighbor is not free to sleep. Freedom, therefore, becomes a problem when it is burdensome to another.
The question, therefore, is really this: how much freedom is the optimum amount? We can probably agree that the ideal is much closer to the free than to the unfree end of the spectrum. We would rather be the wealthy American than the North Korean prisoner. Many wealthy Americans, however, voluntarily take steps which will obviously limit their freedom, such as starting a family or running for office. The optimum amount of freedom, therefore, obviously differs somewhat with individual tastes.