The right to move freely (slate.com)

Some authorities also use restriction of movement as a lever to strip citizens of their other rights which threaten the authorities' power, such as free speech and the right to bear arms. Thus you are "free" to protest or have a firearm, but are highly restricted in where you may actually do so, in some places even down to a prescribed list of specific locations. Even privacy vanishes if you wish to travel by air or near a border, so anyone who wishes to access the full breadth of their rights is stifled in their movement.

The intended side-effect being that the right is neutered, both by hamstringing its practical effectiveness and by posing such an inconvenience (or outright economic disadvantage) that most citizens are deterred from exploring it. On a deeper level it trains citizens into a culture where their rights are a mere vestige which exist at the whim of the state, and may be balanced away by the courts in the name of public interest as soon as they pose any real interruption to the state's goals. Yet they still exist anemically on the fringes so that anyone who complains for them to be restored can be gaslighted and painted as an extremist.

We didn't "lose" it. It's right there behind that barbwire fence. It was taken away.

As an interesting aside, I think this is also an effect low emission zones being implemented all over the world, and in particular in Europe, are having.

It drastically reduces the ability of some people to go to travel to urban centres.

This nomad is interesting to follow: https://3mules.com/ He spends his days asserting his freedom of movement.