… freedom consists not merely in the possibility of doing certain things (i.e. in the lack of constraints on doing them), but in actually doing certain things in certain ways — for example, in realizing one’s true self or in acting on the basis of rational and well-informed decisions.

The idea of freedom as the absence of constraints on the realization of given ends might be criticised as failing to capture this exercise concept of freedom, for the latter concept makes no reference to the absence of constraints.

Source:

• “What’s Wrong with Negative Liberty” which is part of the book “The Idea of Freedom“ by Charles Thomas

My Understanding

Freedom can be both the absence of constriction and the presence of a capability. It can be misleading to focus on just one aspect of freedom and call it complete.

The right to act without interference is an option. I have many options that will never be acted on because of all the little frictions of life.

An environment designed to encourage an understanding of and investment in self-direction is not equivalent to the absence of a looming threat if I do.

Said in a way that might click: goodness is not the absence of badness. That’s a misunderstanding of terms. Goodness requires the presence of something. And I think the same of freedom.