Well, not quite. Negative liberty is an ill defined concept that descends from the need to santize the religious concept of god-given right. In reality, anyone

Well, not quite. Negative liberty is an ill defined concept that descends from the need to santize the religious concept of god-given right. In reality, anyone exercising their right to property, for example, interferes with anyone else who might want to use it. It is only justifiable insofar as such an interference allows for more positive liberty in general, which is why positive rights are the only ones that actually matter (indeed, the only pure negative rights that don't imply interference in the actions are other are in factr the positive freedom to do what one wants with oneself's body). While your interpration is the classical liberal (and religious) dogma, generally when people hear free society they understand it as a society where you can reasonably do what you want, not a society where property rights are absolute. And indeed such an interpretation is much more coherent.