As I’ve noted before, power is the ability to enact one’s will.
Negative freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will without external constraint.
Positive freedom is the ability to act according to one’s will.
A right is a license granted by a higher (not necessarily divine) power to either act according to one’s will or enact ones will within a particular domain.
Notice how similar these definitions are, differing primarily in emphasis.
Freedom is a form of power, and power a form of freedom. Rights are a form of power granted from above.
Any right or freedom is necessarily an exertion of power.
Any right is conditional, and can be taken away by the granter of said right. The assignment of rights is an act of power of the superior upon the inferior.
Granted freedom, whether by court, law, or constitution, is not truly freedom, but a right. It is conditional.
All positive freedoms are necessarily granted, the provision of the ability to act is implied within the definition. Some negative freedoms may be granted, in which case they are not true freedom, merely another right, power bequeathed by the superior. Granted freedoms, freedoms as rights, liberal freedoms, are conditional upon the higher power granting them. They are constrained by that higher power and are therefore not true freedom.
As noted, power comes from, at base, the capacity for violence.
Rights are granted by a higher power with the greater capacity for violence; the superior grants his capacity for violence and his authority to his inferior.
True freedom is a form of power, and, therefore, comes from, at base, a capacity for violence.
True freedom is a reality, not a right.
The reality of whether a person or people has the capacity and will for violence to stay free.
True freedom dies well before any actual impositions on the people. It dies when reality becomes a right, and therefore conditional on a higher power.
Illiberal freedom is the freedom of fact, true freedom.