Freedom is indeed the ability to make your own choices, but you must not understand it in a strictly technical context, more like a social/legal one. It simply isn't viable to physically prevent every action society considers you not free to take, so the restriction of freedom comes in the form of later punishment, it doesn't magically stop being restriction of freedom just because technical possibility is still there.

One can read and disagree (that's what makes reading philosophy hard; you want to argue, discuss, counter the narrative, take it into another direction, deny the assumption, put forward another hypothesis or explanation... but the book just sits there, static and smug, plowing ahead with whatever very specific point and perspective auther has already made up their mind on :)

You are free to make a choice even when the end result is restricting future freedom (sword=death, illegal action=prison/death). So you can in any moment "be totally free" in virtually any society as long as concerns for freedom in future moments are irrelevant to you

What did you smoke, my friend? I really like your search engine, don't destroy it's image for me. Freedom is not strictly equal to technical possibility, it's not even the same word.

Did you not like the question so you avoided it by asking one of your own instead, or is something I'm not familiar with going on?

I'm note sure "freedom" is the same thing as "possible". If it where, only physicists would concerns themselves with its definition.

I think it more often means "permissible" or "practical".