A good essay. I would push back on two points, though.

1) Natural or environmental constraints can be viewed as coercive if individuals suffer their consequences when public resources could have been marshaled to overcome them. Some good examples of this are sanitation and publicly funded medical research into antibiotics and vaccines. All these things and other similar ones saved countless lives and improved the quality of countless others.

Also, consider that without significant public investment, the established airline industry and the budding space tourism industry would not exist, or would have taken much longer to develop. Humans can’t naturally fly, but by pooling our resources we are now able to.

2) I don’t think negative maps to individualist and positive to collectivist, at least not so neatly. Positive liberty is arguably more individualistic. Consider, under anarchy or libertarianism, the lack of public expenditures on all the things I just mentioned, and the absence of any kind of safety net, mean that people often make choices they rather wouldn’t, just because they have to in order to survive.

But where government expenditures are aimed at providing the material basis for a dignified standard of living for all people, individuals are free to define the projects and affirm the values that give their lives the greatest sense of coherence and meaning. Absent that freedom, external material constraints - likely imposed by the wealthy and powerful - would enforce a conformity little different from one imposed by an authoritarian government.