The Western concept of “freedom” - more precisely, of rights unalienably reserved to individuals, families, and private societies, even at the expense of optimal outcomes for society at large - does not assume or require the sensible judgement of its beneficiaries. As another poster alluded, this is a misconception of freedom’s purpose: it does not exist so that society may be optimally ordered, but because it is the necessary dignity (put otherwise, religiously: endowed by our creator) of a sentient human. To subordinate the individual to the needs of society for such crass goals as slightly increased economic productivity or a smarter generation of children is to deny that there may be a purpose to our existence beyond its own mindless perpetuation.
Moreover, there may be emergent boons in favoring the individual over society and the state. My ability to lead an idiosyncratic life, to make choices which may harm both me and the optimal operation of our society, allows for: subcultures flourishing unimpeded and providing joy to those who would otherwise be ostracized; clever eccentrics pursing new technology or new ways of living and thinking; the resiliency to change inherent in diversity, analogous to evolution.
Finally, I think your critique is less about the freedom of the individual and more the danger of unimpeded free enterprise acting on that freedom with ever improving and ever more terrible Skinner boxes of consumerism. It seems to me the best way to address this plight is not more restrictions on the choices of individuals - eg, spying on children to homogenize their behavior - but more restrictions on businesses. If one argues from the dignity of the individual, there is more room to restrict the freedom of capitalist enterprises than that of an individual human’s choices.