Weren't romantics back in the 19th century rebellious against their society? Aren't there some rebellious subcultures today? Some people are rebellious in some ways and quite conformist in other. A teenage hooligan who rebels against his parents might be completely obedient to some leader of a youth gang.
Of course it requires courage to be real rebel, so there are not many ones. Even in places like North Korea, where conditions of living are truly intolerable.
I agree
We can and do rebel against nature. The upshot of these rebellions is just what you call society. We rebel against nature when we refuse to express anger by means of violence, or sexual desire by means of rape, or when we start treating strangers like kinsmen. Peace and civility are quite unnatural. Then some leaders and institutions go further, and want some people to never get angry at all (like a good call centre agent), or to never have sex (like a Catholic priest). This is too much, our nature cannot withstand it. The result of having to adapt is a psychological ailment called oversocialization:
https://freedomisknowledge.com/otw/isaif/04oversocialization.html
So, as you see, I define freedom as acting on your natural impulses. Then freedom of self-expression must be balanced with morality, so there are indeed two contradictory goals to be pursued. For this reason humans cannot have perfect freedom, but there is a genuine difference between a relatively free society like modern America and a tyrannical culture like Saudi Arabia.
Going back to the Big Mac, sometimes socialization imposes on us some cravings which are neither natural nor wholesome, like desire to eat junk food. To suppress these unnatural desires makes us more free, and once we overcome them we indeed feel freer, like some people who have overcome perverted sexual desires. One reformed former paedophile said that he felt like hearing angels singing when he made love to his new wife for the first time.
Well

, typical modernism, there's the society in one side, and nature on the other, and we need to make a balance between those two opposite poles which make a tension. If the tension is to much, society collapse. If the tension is not enough, the society become an undercivilized society of animals.
What about the hypothesis that nature is social? And the society is natural? I don't feel that much of a tension between my "nature" and the society. And I could use my own experience as an example, I'm a trans woman, what's the goal of my "nature", what is the goal of the society? Is my nature as a person born male to stay a male, having kids the "natural" way. But I'm actually feeling a deep tension that's not what I'm supposed to do, that I should be more like female. But maybe we should include our brain in our conception of what is natural, cause my well functionning physiology, regarding sexuality, is in tension with what my brain is saying, and better be sterile with a brain, than a sexual functionning body without brain. So let's say, I'm "naturally" inclined to be a trans woman, or an "artificial" eunuch if hormonal treatment weren't available. So my tension within myself is gone, I'm reconciliate with my "nature".
Let's see if there's a tension between the "nature" of trans people and the society, well, there's, so transphobic people would be "oversocialised" and they're feeling a tension between themselves and "nature". But nope, cause they're not living what we trans people are living, it doesn't feel "natural" what we're going through. So the tension comes from what is deemed "natural", and what isn't? Who is to judge?
As you can notice, speech about "nature" is just a justification. Nature in itself has no goals, we're forcing, as a society, what are the goals of "nature". It could be God for all I care, but the problem isn't resolved at all. Sciences, and thus the methodology to obtain an objectivity, is there to state on the current situation and to say, when you want to achieve this or that goal, here is the best mean to succeed. They can't objectively say what should be our goals, or what are the goals of "nature", or of God.
From there, I would go on to know what are your goals, goals that are socially determined by who you are in the society. So those goals would be social constructions far from any objectivity, just an interested set of projection so you think you'll have a better life if we apply this set of projection. And I would be the oversocialized leftist who is socializing everything or whatever. Problem, I'm not quite what the society want me to be, I don't have a job, I'm going to live in alternative community where no profit can be made, I'll take hormonal treatment and ask to adopt kids, while asking to be refund cause there're no reason why I should be poorer because of my psychological condition of a trans person. I won't privatize the music I compose, I don't even have paper which could prove that I'm able to do anything particular. And maybe, I'll even go through a time where the state will have to give me money so I can live and feed myself
That's seems the person who fit perfectly what the society want, no, and I won't go on that I'm a rebel or anything, I don't want to be in that situation, I didn't want to have depression and anxiety cause of my transidentity, I didn't wanted to fail my studies. I'm forced to find a place to belong outside of what was socially determined as born male, white, "hetero", middle class, cultural bourgeoisie, valid and of an european country. I'm not for revolution cause I'm a free thinker, I'm for revolution, cause the people who are like me have far harder time to find a place to belong in this society.
And it's funny, this concept of oversocialization, because it goes back to the sociologist Émile Durkheim, this was supposed to be a sociological concept, not a psychological one. And, on the vein of the sociological works, it defines more the people on the right, cause the problematisation of the tension within a society, is between the old order and the new order. As such, an oversocialized person is someone who believe so much in the old ways of doing thing that this person is unable to conform to the new way of doing things, what is actually happening, not what is in their head. For example, to include more women and LGBTQIA+ and people of color in the high stratas of the society. But at the same time we could include the leftist who are so high in the abstract thinking of leftist ideologies, that they, too, stop to see the contradictions between what they think, and the consequences of their actions.
This problem, to confound the objects of the logic, and the logic of the objects, (the map and the territory, in other words, even if we never can really see the territory as it is, but approximation through the maps,) is exactly the subject of a big book I began to read from the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. But that's what interest me and what I want to bring to my political stance, and of others, if they allow me. But I'll still hold that we can manage with abstract leftists, barely sometimes, but abstract right-wing, and most right-wing ideologies go to disaster, or at least no decent future for the people like me, but ecology isn't very right-wing, so there's that too.
Do you really think compulsory permanent celibacy for all members is cool?
Yeah, well, not that part

.
Yes, I support democracy, though 100% direct democracy is problematic, I prefer liquid democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
But democracy is not a panacea for all ailments, the conflict between self-expression and morality, between the desires of the individual and his duty to society still exists and always will, unless humans become eusocial creatures.
Okay, not so much problem with that, and the following statement.