What is the difference between the negative and positive conception of liberty?

(i)Negative liberty’ seeks to define and defend an area in which the individual would be inviolable, in which he or she could ‘do, be or become’ whatever he or she wished to ‘do, be or become’. This is an area in which no external authority can interfere. It is a minimum area that is sacred and in which whatever the individual does, is not to be interfered with. The existence of the ‘minimum area of non-interference’ is the recognition that human nature and human dignity need an area where the person can act unobstructed by others. 

The negative liberty tradition argues for an inviolable area of non-interference in which the individual can express himself or herself. If the area is too small then human dignity gets compromised. 

(ii)In contrast, the arguments of positive liberty are concerned with explaining the idea of ‘freedom to’. The individual to develop his or her capability must get the benefit of enabling positive conditions in material, political and social domains. That is, the person must not be constrained by poverty or unemployment; they must have adequate material resources to pursue their wants and needs. They must also have the opportunity to participate in the decision making process so that the laws made reflect their choices, or at least take those preferences into account.

Positive liberty recognises that one can be free only in society and hence tries to make that society such that it enables the development of the individual whereas negative liberty is only concerned with the inviolable area of non-interference and not with the conditions in society, outside this area, as such. Of course negative liberty would like to expand this minimum area asmuch as is possible keeping in mind, however, the stability of society.