It's worth distinguishing between what one is free to do and what valueto one that freedom has. Perhaps you're right that in a world in whichthere was no political society (a State of Nature, as some politicalphilosophers call it) we would be free to do many more things than weare now (since no laws would exist that restrict our freedom). But the worthof those freedoms would be very small. Yes, we'd be free to travelwherever we wanted (without the need for passports, etc.), but mostlikely, absent the security that a political society provides, thelevel of industrial development would be so low that there would be nocars, no planes, no roads, etc. Even if there were roads, it would beso very dangerous to set out on them that I wouldn't dare risk it.Whereas now, my freedom to travel is worth something to me: I can drive(I have a car, I can buy fuel for it, there are roads!) confidently tothe airport (there are airports!) and take a plane (there's anaerospace industry!) to Reykjavik. The freedom to fly to Reykjavikisn't worth much if there are no planes, no cars, no roads, no safetraveling.
So, even if you thought that freedom (the absence ofconduct-regulating laws enforced by the power of the state) is a goodthing and that freedom would be increased living in a State of Nature,reasonable people might still choose to live in a political societywith a government that restricts their freedoms, because the freedoms they would have would be of value to them. (See also Question 291.)