Condemned to be Free?

Sartre maintains that we are condemned to be free. This kind of freedom is radical in nature because we are free to do anything except to cease being free. One might think that such freedom would be a good thing, especially compared to the alternative, but Sartre begs to differ. My question is, is being radically free better or worse than being radically determined? I always assumed that complete, or radical, freedom is what all people truly desire, but Sartre believes that radical freedom causes such anguish that what people truly desire is freedom from choice at all. Whenever I personally try to imagine such a world I find it perfectly horrid. Freedom is something that people have been fighting and dyeing for since the beginning of time, isn't freedom of choice one of the most valued things in this world? Yes, having freedom of choice might mean that you are responsible for your actions, and it might mean that you cannot necessarily justify your actions, but isn't that better still than not being able to choose for yourself any actions at all? No matter how difficult it might seem to make ones' own choices, I firmly believe that it is still better than someone, or something, else having complete control over one's choices. What does anyone else think?