And that is how you see freedom. And that's one way to see it.
But let me give an example. Lets say I live in a town of 100 people. We are all, say, loggers. We agree that all of us will put $100 dollars a year into a trust, and if one of us is badly injured by a falling tree, that money will be used to hire a doctor. Now, lets say Bob is hit by a tree. I would argue that he is entitled to have his doctor paid for, and I would certainly not think that I was enslaved because I helped pay for it. After all, if *I* had been the one the tree landed on, then *I* would have been entitled to the money. Now, what I've described is basically just an insurance arrangement. And many people would say this increases the freedom of the loggers, because each logger is not forced to dedicate a large amount of resources to provide for him/her self and his/ her family in the case of an accident. The agreement takes care of a large part of that money, and so the loggers can invest their earnings in taking up a hobby, or buying their own logging camp, etc. They have more options, because although they are required to pay a fee, they are entitled to compensation in the case of disaster, allowing them to take more risks.
But many people would argue that social safety nets are basically the same idea. They may not be 100% volintary (and for reasons far too lengthy to explain in this example, can't be). But yes, the guy receiving unemployment is "entitled" to something that came from you that he did not compensate you for. On the other hand, if you were the one unemployed, YOU would be be one entitled to the payment, and HE would be the one paying without compensation. But there actually is compensation here: your compensation for the amount that you pay into an entitlement program is your OWN entitlement to the payout when and if you require it. Its an insurance contract on a massive scale.
Now you probably see that as a form of enslavement, and actually, that's not an invalid point of view (after all, you didn't ask to for the entitlement and you certainly didn't ask to pay for it). But other people simply see it as a reasonable social contract that does not significantly impinge on their freedom. They see it the same way the hypothetical loggers might: as freedom enhancing. I don't think that view is necessarily wrong either.