You raise some interesting points.
I am pretty much center-right, perhaps I can expand on this a bit.
This question can be construed as a false dichotomy, or as a mutually exclusive choice, but I don't think either of those views is entirely correct.... just like the question "freedom or order?" or "freedom or security?"
A certain amount of one is necessary to the existence of the other... yet at the same time, taking either to an extreme tends to drastically reduce the other principle.
For instance, let's say we had absolute freedom and absolute self-soveriegnty, and gov't only existed to secure the borders against outsiders and to punish those who INITIATED force or fraud against an innocent party (the nonaggression principle of libertarianism). Let's say there were no government services whatsoever, and the libertarian ideal of privatized-everything was the norm, including privatized cops.
You'd be free. You'd be free to starve to death if you can't find a job, free to be victimized by whoever had more power than you if you couldn't afford to pay for cop/security services.... I suppose you'd be free to sell yourself into slavery if that was the only way not to starve to death. If you're mentally or physically limited and can't work and the church-sponsored homeless shelters are full I guess you're free to freeze to death on the street. Those who are best at accumulating capital will be free to accumulate it until they own everything in town and you either work for them or starve.
Doesn't sound too good, eh?
Let's try maximizing fairness. Everybody gets an equal share of the Gross Domestic Product. Everybody who is able gets a job of some kind, whatever they're suited for, makework if we can't find anything else you can do, but everybody gets paid the same. Everyone has the same access to healthcare or any other limited resource as everyone else.
Well, what happens? There is no incentive to achieve or excel. There is no incentive to work extra hard or seek promotion. There is no incentive to go to college other than pride and status. Enterpreneurship and invention decline. Productivity declines. Pretty soon each person's share of the GDP starts to decline. Eventually we're all equally poor.
Not too good either, eh?
This is why a middle-of-the-road centrist approach makes more sense. Some entity (ie gov't) has to ensure that those with lots of power (ie corporations, capitalists, warlords) don't use that power to abuse and mistreat those with little power (ie Joe Workingdude) and that there's some reasonable effort to give everyone a fair opportunity to excel. At the same time, you need to maximize freedom within that context so that creativity and invention and enterpreneurship isn't stifled, and so that greater productivity has its incentives.
I voted Freedom, because to me freedom is the sine-qua-non of life, but in truth we have to have a measure of fairness as well or freedom simply means the freedom to be abused by those with more power.