The absence of rules does not make everybody free. All it does is make power available to the strongest. The strongest inevitably uses that power to usurp freedom from the weak.
This is what happens with liberally licensed free software; software that was once free is now being used to subjugate users of their right to freedom.
So what is freedom with relation to software? [b]Software freedom the right for one user to help oneself; accepting proprietary software means that the user is helpless. How do users live in freedom when they always require explicit permission in order to help themselves? Note that there is no guarantee for anybody to granted the necessary freedoms in the context of proprietary software; it is normal for all users to be completely helpless in this context.
Freedom with relation to software is the right to be upstanding members of society. A free society should not require explicit permission in order to share and cooperate. The nature of computer software is to exist as a tool. Upstanding citizens share their tools, information and resources with their neighbours. However, there is a problem: accepting proprietary software means that society is forbidden to share; accepting proprietary software means one is divided from the rest of society.
There is no freedom in proprietary software as users are expected to be helpless and divided in order to use them.
The GNU GPLs are free simply because of the reason that those that accept it have the liberty to live free and upstanding lives.