The distinction between negative and positive rights is the reason that libertarians are in no way liberal (in the modern sense of the word). It explains the difference between classical and modern liberalism.
A negative rights political framework is one in which government powers are limited and enumerated. The US Constitution is a negative rights document. The rights described in the Bill of Rights are all stated in terms of limitations on government power: “Congress shall make no law...” So, under a negative rights framework, individuals are free by default. The limited powers of the government are applied to maintain social order. This is the classical liberal position, the libertarian position, and to a large extent, the conservative one.
A positive rights framework is one in which individuals have a “right” to social goods, such as a “right” to vote or a “right” to receive health care. The problem is that rights are per se absolute, so any roadblock to delivering these “rights” is a violation of (positive) human rights! Also, positive rights imply a positive duty on the part of everyone else to deliver on these rights. As a result, positive rights are inimical to the concept of limited government; in fact, they necessarily lead to a government involved in every nook and cranny of our lives. This is the modern liberal (social democratic) and socialist position.
Regardless of what you think of Paul or other libertarians, his views are consistent with negative rights at the federal level. And his concept of the federal government’s role could not be more different from that of modern liberals.
Actually, liberal wasn’t always a dirty word either. But today’s liberals are yesterdays socialists.
Birds of a feather my friend. If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck and is supported by other ducks, it is a duck!