Thither is goose egg incorrectly with changing your selection of run-in somewhat to bring the Sami view. If we get as well fixated on victimization a finicky set phrase it tail take away from what we at long last allege. So preferably than inquisitory to discovery a hone antonym, progress to use of goods and services of altogether the other beautiful actor’s line we deliver which bequeath baffle your aim crosswise. An advertisement agency in Cambridge, Flock., throwing forethought to the winds, comes decent come out and invites business community to institutionalise for a tract which explains in point how very much money a keep company tail drop for advertising without increasing its revenue enhancement bill. Employers’ advertizement is nowadays existence subsidized by the taxpayers, quite an a few of whom are, of course, anal sex porn functional hoi polloi. In about of this advertising, propaganda is made for “free enterprise” as narrowly and unacceptably formed by the Internal Tie of Manufacturers. Middling often these subsidized advertisements nail working class. It would be risky adequate if industriousness were disbursement its possess money to assay to lay misbegotten ideas in the public mind, only when manufacture is permitted to do it “for free,” someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. As I said, I’m not entirely sold on this analysis, because I think most people either use “disembarrass of” and “release from” interchangeably—except in the case of “gratis of charge”—or arbitrarily prefer one or the other form to express the same idea, without having any finer distinctions in mind.
If so, my analysis amounts to a rule in search of actual usage—a prescription rather than a description. In any event, the impressive rise of “release of” against “spare from” over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using “rid of” in place of “disembarrass from” during that period. If I assume that you want to say the opposite of e.g. ‘The popcorn is free of charge when you purchase a ticket’, the opposite would be e.g. ‘The popcorn comes at a cost’, ‘The popcorn isn’t free’, ‘The popcorn cost $10’, ‘You have to pay for the popcorn’ or, simply, ‘The popcorn isn’t free’. The statement, ‘You can take your baby on the flight free of charge’ would be in opposition to ‘You have to pay to take your baby on a plane’ or ‘It’s not free’, or informally, ‘You gotta pay for it’. To say something is not included (if, for example, popcorn weren’t free of charge, even with ticket) one could say ‘The popcorn is not included in the ticket price’. I don’t know that we’ve come up with a precise answer to the question. An example sentence would be really useful to show what you want the opposite of. Any word that can be used and interpreted in so many ways as free needs contextual background if we are to understand what you’re asking for. YOU can vote NO and save your money because you know that you can tell management about the things you want and they will do their best to give these things free.
If we extend the conceptualization to the word “freedom,” I think we’ll find more basis for differentiation in the choices between “unfreeze of” and “dislodge from.” So let’s try a few examples. They are not exactly interchangeable, but the distinction is very subtle. To illustrate, let me first change your example sentences into the forms I find most agreeable.
To be qualified for this office, a person must be a free white man, 21 years of age; must have been an inhabitant of the state three years, and, if he reside in the district for which he is chosen, he must have a freehold clear of debt to the amount of 150 sterling. To be entitled to the privilege of voting for members of the legislative body, a person must be a free white man, 21 years of age, must have been an inhabitant of the state two years, and must have been, for six months preceding the election, possessed of a freehold of 50 acres of land, or a lot in a town. This was usually how it showed up in the Hollywood movies of the 1930’s. There were still black slaves in some states in the mid 1800s, so obviously being free and white was a meaningful part of “I tin can do what I need and no unitary throne block me”. But unless it refers to the “freedom” to vote, I don’t know what the significance of reaching 21 would have been at the time. If you’re referring to a product, it’s probably more common simply to use a phrase such as “which must be paying for”. Otherwise, it is common to use a phrase such as “entrance money billing applies”, “subjugate to payment” etc. Another comment, above, mentioned that this phrase is acceptable in advertising circles. Advertisers now use this syntactical abomination freely, as they carelessly appeal to our lower natures, and matching intellects.
Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective “free”; namely, “for null price” (gratis) and “with few or no restrictions” (libre). The ambiguity of “free” can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents. However the use of free is widely accepted to mean at no monetary cost. Its use is acceptable in advertising or speech and its use is understood to mean no monetary cost. I would only change the use in a situation where clarity and accuracy were truly important, like in a contract. “Free” in an economic context, is short for “release of load.” As such, it is correct. The use of a commodity, such as ‘five dollars’, can be correctly phrased, “for quintet dollars”. Although the earliest match for “for free” in my original answer was from the August 16, 1947 issue of The Billboard magazine, I have subsequently run more-extensive searches in Google Books and Hathi Trust and turned up multiple matches from as early as February 1943.