The point that's missing is where rights and freedoms "originate", so to speak. The US view, called out specifically in the Constitution, is that all freedoms

The point that's missing is where rights and freedoms "originate", so to speak. The US view, called out specifically in the Constitution, is that all freedoms and rights are inherent in being, and not granted by the government. As such, the government cannot give or guarantee rights, it is only capable of taking them away. The role of the Constitution and the amendments (in particular, the first ten known as the bill of rights) do NOT specify what rights people have, they specify those rights that the government may NOT curtail. Hence, the discussion of negative versus positive rights is entirely not about what rights exist, but what authority the government may or may not exercise over them. Of course, any brief look at America's history shows the government failing to abide by its own restrictions. The government we have now is significantly different from what the original authors had intended, as they were more concerned with finding a way for the disparate states to coordinate at all after the failure of the previous Articles of confederation. Now, we have an overarching federal government that renders individual states to be little more important that municipal organizations, much more in line with other countries.