Negative liberty refers to the absence of external constraints. It argues for an inviolable area of non-interference in which the individual can express himself or herself. The negative liberty tradition is concerned only with this area of non-interference and not with the conditions in society outside this area.

Positive liberty is concerned with the idea of 'freedom to'. It responds to the question 'who governs me?' with the ideal answer 'I govern myself'. This conception has a long tradition traced to thinkers like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Gandhi, and Aurobindo.

A key difference lies in their approach to society. Positive liberty recognises that one can be free only in society and tries to make society such that it enables the development of the individual. It looks at improving conditions so there are fewer constraints to individual development. The individual is like a flower that blossoms when conditions are favourable.

Negative liberty seeks to expand the minimum area of non-interference, whereas positive liberty focuses on creating conditions for individual growth. While negative liberty emphasises absence of constraints, positive liberty emphasises the capacity and ability to make choices within society.