Freedom from coercion versus freedom through coercion

From James Taranto's WSJ column. A pithy but distinctly pointed definition:

The Bogus Idea of Freedom

The delightfully named Carl Bogus, who describes himself as "a dyed-in-the-wool liberal" who is nonetheless "reasonably intelligent and open-minded," has "spent much of the past four years reading many of the great conservative books." National Review recently published an interview with Bogus. The interviewer is also the delightfully named Carl Bogus. This Q&A got our attention:

Bogus: After having completed an extensive program of reading great conservative works, how can you still be a liberal?

Bogus: As Isaiah Berlin pointed out, what separates us at the most fundamental level may be our different conceptions of liberty. Conservatives value above all else what Berlin called the negative vision of liberty, namely, freedom from coercion. Liberals are more willing to balance that against the positive vision of liberty--that is, having a reasonable opportunity to realize one's potential. The negative vision focuses conservatives on restricting the government's ability to interfere in people's lives. The positive vision leads liberals to believe that government has a role in guaranteeing baseline minimums in education, medical care, and healthy communities.

To sum it up a bit more pithily, whereas conservatives want freedom from coercion, liberals want freedom through coercion