There definitely needs to be more information here. As gordonz88 commented, we need to know if we can infringe other's freedoms or not. I will, based on "absolute", assume that I can infringe other's freedoms at will. Unfortunately, that means that none of them can have absolute freedom. only one superhuman can possibly be completely free (including the power to infringe others). Of course, that's okay; the question only specifies "you" (singular we must assume). The option of absolute security, however, needs far more clarification. Secure from physical harm? Mental harm? Both? I'll assume it's all forms of harm, physical and mental (going on 'absolute' here). Being completely secure from physical and emotional harm pretty much requires that I live in a bubble. I could scrape my wrist walking down the hall so I must be entirely immobile. I also cannot interact with anyone else as anyone might unexpectedly say something which causes mental anguish. As it stands, we're left with being tied down and drugged for the rest of our life to avoid all physical and mental damage. In other words, not really living. Dealing with problems is just a fact of life that we cannot do without. There's one final trick that I think this question brings though. It seems to me that absolute freedom also contains all the desirable aspects of security. Since others cannot infringe on our freedom (else it wouldn't be absolute), we are immune to being physically harmed in any meaningful way as we would lose freedom of action as soon as another person physically restrains or alters us without our consent. It doesn't follow as easily, but it could be argued that the absolutely free human might be immune to theft, either because theft deprives the freedom of owning or because an absolutely free person would not own anything. The obvious choice appears to be absolute freedom without question. It appears to be completely one sided based on my above analysis.
I think that as far as the "absolute freedom" bit goes, the spirit of this question means that each of us is absolutely free from a greater governing body. I think to get caught up in the technicality that if another civilian tries to harm you, steal from you or otherwise infringe upon your freedom then you are not truly free causes you to miss the point about that part of the question. I take this to mean that we are suddenly, at least temporarily, without the Social Contract. Correct me if I am wrong, vince.
True. I regret if I seemed to be dismissive of BT's post.
Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" and then Blue Mink's "Good Morning Freedom" both just came on back to back and reminded me that I never answered the question for myself. I would have to choose absolute freedom. Eventually the social contract would emerge again and it would be hard going until then but, damn it, it won't be boring.
Regardless of if my interpretation of freedom, my interpretation for "absolute security" must also be rejected for my logic to fail. I see absolute security as practically being in a coma, something I feel almost anyone would say is less desirable than nearly any state of affairs, especially any which contains any sort of reasonable freedom (absolute or not). As such, if you doubt my definition of freedom or my definition of security, but not both, the entire argument still stands strongly I think. I apologize for the delayed response.