"Most founders of this country warned against a standing army, and pointed out that a standing army is actually a threat to liberty. But today we equate any action by that army to freedom." ~ http://truthvoice.com/2015/05/5-reasons-it-doesnt-make-sense-to-say-we-owe-our-freedom-to-the-military/

Rhetoric aside, there is a subtle but important difference between the freedom and the liberty. the freedom is inherent, such as the freedom to breathe, whereas liberty is issued, by the powers that be, such as liberty to apply for tax return or to vote.

"A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group; negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positiveright is a right to be subjected to an action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action."

hence the difference between the inherent freedom and the issued liberty, and the Western "positive" Christian theology, i.e. "Do onto others what you want to be done onto you" vs Eastern "negative" Buddhist teachings, "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you."

The difference between the freedom and liberty is: you are free to move your arms at will, but you got liberty to take a smoke break if your employer has permitted. Naturally, you can take a smoke break or not, that's your freedom once you got the liberty to have a smoke break. The point is that the freedom is inherent, one has it by default, hence it is called universal, while the liberty someone has to grant in order for it to be exercised.

The basic difference, the freedom one has even if one is alone, the liberty only exists when there is a group of at least two, since the one who is exercising the liberty has to receive it from another. So, what  endows a person with inherent freedoms? The birth and being alive.