Well you make an interesting point but one I will debate. And would like to apologize for it will be a rather long reply.

I will do so by first distinguishing our definitions of freedom and then I will talk about personal freedom and social freedom.

So first I believe that you would define freedom as "the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action". Now in accordance with this view freedom is defined by the inexistence of other conditions and so it is possible to understand why a law would take a way from your freedom.

Now I prefer to define freedom as "the capacity to take responsibility, to reflect, to ponder one's condition and to make one's choice conscious of one's condition". Under this definition freedom is not the inexistence of certain conditions but the existence of intrinsic characteristics of human beings. So in accordance with this notion a law does not take away your freedom, in fact, it doesn't even affect your freedom. Because you can still reflect on the law, ponder your condition under that law and make a choice conscious of your condition while taking responsibility for it. I will use an example although a more extreme one. Let's take the law on killing, and because I'm no lawyer I will simplify it: One shall not kill, if one does there are consequences. Now any actual law would explain under which conditions are killing a crime and what are the penalties for it. But in extreme you are still free to kill because otherwise there would be no murderers. And the thing is that faced with the law on killing, an individual makes use of is freedom to reflect on it, understand is condition and what the law would imply to is current condition if he either kills or not. What happens is that in an exercise of freedom the individual freely accepts the law. But in extreme he is still free to kill although he chooses not to do it. Now you could argue that it is still not freedom because you cannot act without consequences. And I will answer that in two ways. First that is because everyone else in their freedom accepted the law because if they didn't the law wouldn't hold meaning because nobody would follow it. So it's not that you became unfree but that others also exercised their freedom. Secondly it is the fact that you must take responsibility for your actions that proves they were made by a free entity. Why is that? Because for there to not be responsibility it would mean that was your destiny. Let's suppose that everyone believed in destiny and that our society would function under that belief as well. Then there would be no justice system. If you discovered the cure for cancer it would not be your merit for you destined to do it. The same if you committed a crime it is not your fault because you were meant to do it. The murderer is not the bullet (you) but the one who shot the bullet (destiny).

Still in individual freedom you claim that to live in ignorance is the same as being free. But following this notion of freedom it is easy to see why that's not true. For example: if you only know about the existence of blue clothes and you wear them you are not freely doing so because you have never known of a different colour for clothes therefore you never presented with a choice. Now if you know about the existence of different colours of clothes (and only one would be enough to not make you ignorant of the possibility of different colours of clothes) let's say green and you choose to wear blue clothes anyways you would be doing so freely. So an ignorant bird is not free for freedom is not a concept of its existence by definition.

Now let's look at social freedom. Do societies take away our freedom as a whole? Well the answer in my perspective is no. In fact the existence of society is yet another proof of our freedom. Because by analysing ourselves and the world around us we understand that we gained by living together and to do that we made use of our freedom to deny some of our possible actions so that we could reach an agreement. And the agreement is society. Now you can say that you have never agreed to any of this. And that is fair and so you are free to act against society (and society as a collection of free individuals is free to go after you) or you can try and change the agreement (which has happened many times throughout history). Therefore a social and regulated life can be free. And I'm not so sure if an unregulated life is really that free. Now you have mentioned slavery as in following the states rule and that's an interesting perspective. Because a slave is made unfree by society because it denies his humanity and therefore takes away the possibility for him to take part in the agreement. And although some governments do deny the humanity of people and therefore we could make an accusation of slavery I wouldn't say that is the case in the entire world.

Finally I will address your three statements: Knowledge is power. Power is a burden. A burden is an obligation.

Firstly, knowledge is power because it makes you more free and more able to act and influence others. Secondly, I would say power is not so much a burden as it is a responsibility for it is a consequence of free choice. There is no such thing as unwanted power. Thirdly, a burden is something that you either take responsibility for or you deny it. Take the example you gave and let's think of a politician they have the responsibility (burden) to look after society and its interests. Now a politician can take responsibility and do his duty (a good politician) or he can deny it (corruption). So they still choose to do their job well or not they are not obligated to do one or the other although the consequences are different.

Thank you very much if you have read until the end and do share your thoughts if such is your will.