More importantly, the distinction between “positive” and “negative liberties” is itself arbitrary, and depends on how property rights have been previously defined. For example, both a landlord’s right to evict tenants or exclude trespassers from a piece of land to which they hold fee-simple absentee title, and an occupant’s right to maintain possession of their usufructory/possessory claim against any would-be collector of rent, can be defended as a negative right, depending on the property regime.
[Isaiah] Berlin struggles to explain how positive and negative freedom might be opposites until he puts the contrast in terms of different ways in which freedom might be a practical concern. For Berlin, those who want positive freedom are concerned with how much control they have over their lives and want such control placed in their own hands. On the other hand, those who want negative freedom are concerned with maximizing the area of their lives in which others do not interfere with threats or force, and want to limit any such power others might have over their lives.
But often a given liberty can be framed as either negative or positive, or both at the same time. Secure possession of living space, or workplace autonomy, for example, both maximizes individual control over major aspects of one’s life, and maximizes freedom from outside interference. Indeed, individual control and freedom from interference are arguably different ways of stating the same thing.
-Kevin A. Carson, "Liberal Socialism" (July 2026)
