Are those residents paying for the total cost of that parking? The space consumed, the opportunity costs averted, the safety cost of more cars driving through dense areas with pedestrians and cyclists?

If they are then that freedom is a valid choice. If they aren't, then they're being subsidized by public amenities, and the public can decide how those amenities should be used.

Are the bicyclists and pedestrians paying the full cost of the streets and sidewalks that they are using?

Not through direct usage tax, but probably through local taxes. And cycling and pedestrian infrastructure generally costs less per person-mile of capacity than car infrastructure.

Those streets and sidewalks were created through public action, the public decided or elected people who decided that that was a good allocation of resources.

Just like we decide that parking in some places is a good allocation of resources.

Changing our minds on which thing to allocate resources to isn't an affront to our freedoms, when done in a way that is democratic or representative.

The town deciding to build a park on some land instead of selling it to a developer to build a mall isn't an oppression of the mall builder's freedoms. It's just a choice.

Personally I find having choices in how to move around is an increase in personal freedom. Needing to own, insure, maintain, and fuel a car to participate in a community is a financial burden, and a burden on those who have to deal with cars and traffic while trying to do things like walk across a giant parking lot to get between two locations that should be reasonable to walk between.

Casting all decisions that do anything to take away public infrastructure for cars as a reduction in freedom is ridiculous.

Those don't actively impede everyone else, so I don't mind if they use them for free.

It's not that simple. Your car increases your freedom, but everybody else's cars decrease it. As a resident who does not have a car, cars impede my freedom to bike and jaywalk, they are unsightly and reduce visibility, they take up space that could be used for bike lanes, greenery, benches or terraces. It would be far more pleasant if there were far less of them.

I believe that Japan bans on-street parking and that you are not allowed to have a car unless you can prove that you have dedicated parking for it. That seems like a good model to me.