Freedom from—or freedom for? There's a difference

We were in the library briefly yesterday, and I was looking over the new arrivals, as is my wont, and ran across this:

To be sure, it is tempting to think of liberty as us against the world, which the notion of negative freedom allows us to do. If the barriers are the only problem, then all must be right with us. That makes us feel good. We think that we would be free if not for a world outside that does us wrong. But is the removal of something in the world really enough to liberate us? Is it not as important, perhaps even more important, to add things?

If we want to be free, we will have to affirm, not just deny. Sometimes we will have to destroy, but more often we will need to create. Most often we will need to adapt both the world and ourselves, on the basis of what we know and value.… Virtue is an inseparable part of freedom.—Timothy Snyder, On Freedom, xiii

<idle musing>
Yep, "Virtue is an inseparable part of freedom." We seem to be forgetting that in our nation right now, where money is the be-all and end-all of value. But, as every empire has discovered, it isn't enough.
</idle musing>