...and you still didn't explain why the "freedom" should be the only thing guaranteed to the people by the society.

Freedom is not up to society to give or take, it's a natural right that we had before society even existed unlike healthcare, education or security for example. So, since those are provided by society, society can take them away, but not freedom.

Now of course, I'm talking in principle here, individual freedom is limited by other things, private property for example, or justice, like in this case with this guy in solitary confinement, but it's because we live in society with other people and we all need to get along, but the principle still remains, freedom is a natural right that precedes society itself.

This was the sense of my comment.

Ok, but I don't understand what does any of that have to do with a case where the society failed to provide care for an (effectively) orphan, failed to provide security, failed to provide healthcare, and insisted on cruel and unusal punishment for 7 out of 19 years. You say that "society can take them away", and I agree, and I call it a failure of that society when it happens. What does "freedom as a natural right preceding society" have to do with any of this?

Could you explain how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated? Freedom means you are in control of your life, but in your scenario, you are no longer in control of your life because you transgressed. Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?

I can try :)

> how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated?

Jail acts both as a deterrent, through fear of being punished, and it also incapacitates the offender to commit more crime to protect society.

> Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?

It's the people, through laws, who determines what behavior is or is not acceptable in society.