Modern understandings of positive freedom are opposite the classical thinking of negative freedom.

By this method, legislation promoting negative freedoms and human rights is to be considered "Islamic".

Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people.

In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.

It's always seemed to me that Berlin's positive and negative freedoms are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

In this matter we only possess a negative freedom of will, a noluntas.

Classical liberals favour a focus on negative freedom as did Berlin himself.

That is because the Constitution, including the First Amendment, seeks more than an individual's "negative" freedom from government restriction.

But constitutional principles of federalism involve active as well as negative freedom.

In the Bengal famine, rural laborers' negative freedom to buy food was not affected.