In retirement, one of my favorite pastimes is to ride my bike in the neighborhood each morning. Right-wingers would describe my ability to do that as a “negative freedom” attributable to the absence of a government prohibition. Are they right?
It’s more complicated than that. First of all, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the federal government from prohibiting my bike rides; the same would be true of state and local governments, as well. The absence of a regulation is a matter of common sense and legislative discretion, not an overriding legal limitation. Second, the bike rides are only possible because the federal, state, and local governments provide the necessary degree of security against crime and external threats; in, say, South Sudan, the situation would be totally different. Third, the neighborhood association, which has regulatory powers even though it is not technically a government, has chosen to permit the rides. Finally, I can afford to engage in the pastime due to the existence of a federal entitlement program–Social Security. No money, no bike, and no rides.
All of these factors are intertwined in the result. The outcome is the product of a combination of positive and negative freedoms, as well as power and common sense. As a practical matter, the apparently clear dichotomy between the two kinds of freedom is illusory.