Explain how liberals are divided over freedom

It could be compellingly argued that freedom is the fundamental ideological base of Liberalism, and all Liberal assumptions and values can find their roots in the notion of it. However, while freedom may seem like a fairly one-dimensional concept, it is actually highly complex and unless specific theories of freedom are discussed, the term becomes so vague as to be almost meaningless. The ideological division within Liberalism over the notion of freedom essentially revolves around one debate, that of positive freedom and negative freedom. Positive freedom, essentially meaning 'freedom to', is often favoured by social liberals that believe a large, central government with an emphasis on welfare and support of citizens is the most effective way of encouraging individuals to reach self-actualisation and ultimately foster national prosperity. Isaiah Berlin describes this form of 'freedom' as being based on the desire 'on the part of the individual to be his own master', that is having equal opportunity to pursue their own goals. In the past, the belief in the need for positive freedom has manifested itself in, for example, the Beveridge Report and the development of the British Welfare State. However, not all liberals believe that positive freedom is the most effective way to liberate citizens and foster economic and social prosperity. Many Neo-Liberals believe in 'negative freedom', essentially 'freedom from', which is the idea that people are rational, individual beings who do not need to be, and in a moral sense should not be restricted by the state artificially reinforcing social equality. Many free-market economic thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek have espoused this doctrine, and the ideas of those thinkers who have supported 'negative freedom' had a significant impact on politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. For those who support 'negative freedom', we live in an atomised society in which the only just way to govern is to essentially, with some basic limitations, let the people live, consume, and do as they please. However, that is not to say that 'negative freedom' means absolute freedom, there are very few classical liberal thinkers, who are generally those that discuss 'negative freedom' in the most positive terms, that would encourage the abolition of the state or getting rid of a foundational law-enforcement body.