"It's pretty good compared to..."
They are different government types, founded on different laws, containing different people, and so on. The United States was founded on the idea of "freedom" so, it seems strange to require anything on you, unless it impedes others freedoms.
It's important to not hand waive away that evolution, because the US is not run on the most-free system of government that could have been imagined in 1776. We ratcheted that down almost immediately, and to argue otherwise is incorrect.
Both the idea of "freedom" and the idea of impeding others' freedoms have been specified in US legislation and in the case history of the US court system. Without going through and clarifying what freedom and impeding freedom mean in different situations, the US economy could not exist at its present size.
Investors can be confident that life will go smoothly based on the US Government. That's what powers the US Treasury, which powers low interest rates, which powers our economy.
I'd argue that the United States was founded on particular freedoms, not the general idea of it. Like the original settlers just wanted the freedom to practice their religion in peace. They certainly didn't believe in any freedoms beyond their own interests.
If you "own" property, I can't freely walk onto that property. Your "ownership" places a severe limitation on my ability to exercise the freedom to move about freely.
It seems specious to claim retroactively that the US somehow cares about freedom at all, when some of the most basic were stripped from us at its founding.
The hole in your logic is the notion that your freedom is impeded, when in fact it is not: that freedom properly does not exist where you're claiming it should. The same logic hole is commonly seen when people claim censorship on private forums: freedom of speech does not apply there, just as physical right to pass/movement does not apply to private physical space.
What's "private" space without the violence of the state to back it up? By what right can you exclude me from walking wherever I please, under some guise of "freedom"?
Constraining my movement with respect to your lawn is putting a constraint on my freedom. Beating me up neither constrains my freedom nor encourages it, it's just you being violent.
It's also silly to say the US is founded on "freedom" when that word is uselessly vague.