The Western concept of freedom in many western tradition definitely assumes that the person exercising the freedom knows what is best for them. Actually, this i

The Western concept of freedom in many western tradition definitely assumes that the person exercising the freedom knows what is best for them. Actually, this is how we in the West operatively define utility, not as what you actively need but as what you think you need. Which as the OP underlined is exactly why advertising for example in the Western economic tradition brings positive utility, because we assume that people know what is useful to them. Beyond that, it's simply incorrect that our "freedom" means we aren't subordinate to the wills of society - we are, because we require resources to survive which the state has ordained are controlled by other people, which requires ourselves to subordinate to the will of others. No matter how you get around it, as long as you have property you are doomed to live a subordinate life unless you're very lucky. This is a false dichotomy written by people who didn't rid themselves of religious doctrine enough to understand that negative rights cannot exist without a violent state instead of being simply inherent. Beyond that, limiting restrictions on businesses is philosophically the same as restricting individuals, businesses are simply collections of individuals. Crucially though businesses are already functionally almost completely restricted to the profit motive, but that's an effect of the property system and of the role of the state more than anything else.