The paradox of freedom, first discovered by Plato, can be formulated as follows: unlimited freedom leads to its opposite because, without protection and restriction by the law, freedom sooner or later leads to tyranny.

The first adequate solution was proposed by Kant: “The freedom of each person should be limited, but not beyond those limits that are necessary to ensure the same degree of freedom for all.”

Freedom is a societal state rather than a personal matter. A subject’s field of action. No individual exists completely outside of a society. It’s not to be confused with free will – something that no one truly can take away from another.
From that perspective, we see clearly that freedom is will for balance, and as any neutralizer it should be applied in same form for all elements; the law is a technique of freedom, set of rules to avoid bad precedents when an element foolishly destroys their own foundation.

It’s interesting to note that a similar phenomenon applies to the expansion of a subject.
Huge resources easily overwhelm an average person. People rarely grow in proportion to their bank account balance; instead, they are often “compressed” and “narrowed” by it.

In fact, money distribution is generally a social phenomenon, it’s a property of system, rather than a personal matter. I’d not consider capitalism and socialism separately; both techniques should be applied together to give growth (capital and privacy) and stability (helping society); what is like with freedom: you do what you want and you’re welcome to grow, but you can’t harm others because you’re one of them.