It’s the wrong way of thinking about freedom.

Negative freedom doesn’t exist. It’s an idealist concept that doesn’t account for humans as a society. Even in simple economics, if one person hoards resources, then that raises the price of the remaining resources, to the point where others can’t obtain them.

Increased “negative freedom” isn’t more freedom. It’s just shifting “positive freedom” from some people to others. Or in terms more relevant to our situation, capitalist accumulation.

Negative freedom is the allowance for theft of opportunity.

Edit1:

how should freedom be defined? It should be defined by what you are allowed to do by your material conditions. Whether that’s what society allows you to do or what your resources and abilities allow you to do.

How do we increase the amount of freedom for everyone, and overall? We get more freedom by increasing our production capacity and efficiency, thereby bettering our material conditions; through increasing our productive forces which can only be done through cooperation and not competition.

Edit2:

What does this have to do with the state?

As Lenin has stated, the purpose of the state is to mediate between classes, and the state must favour one class over another. Most states are capitalist states, favouring the capitalist class.,

Class, as it is currently defined, is by how you make your living, or your relation to the means of production. Are you the owning class or the working class?

A capitalist state will always favour capital accumulation, as it favours the owning class. (See my original comment) As such, it will advocate for a more lazefair approach until the contradictions cannot be contained.

A socialist state will try to resolve contradictions, and increase cooperation between the people in order to boost their productive forces. As such, as Mao has said, we cannot be liberal.

For both types of state, this is praxis.