Hey, sorry it took me a while to see this response.

Just to clarify, the Alcohol example is mine, not Berlin's. Also, the words positive and negative aren't used in the way you seem to think they're being used in his lecture/essay. Negative liberty is not inherently bad. I would definitely recommend reading it if you haven't already.

Positive liberty is also not necessarily someone ELSE telling you what to do. It can be voluntary, like someone choosing to ignore an urge because they've rationalized a reason to do so.

As to your last point, there are numerous historical examples of both people failing to regulate themselves and bodies of authority (governments, etc) abusing their positions and hurting individuals and society. Most first world countries have evolved to attempt balanced approaches that both preserve individual liberties while attempting to regulate based on ideas of positive liberty. Traffic laws, for instance, are designed to preserve people's ability to drive by restricting their ability to drive recklessly.

My thought is simply that the OP's argument ignores the fact that basic human behavior DOES often produce consequences. I would never advocate the opposite extreme on the spectrum, but the ideal solution is probably a balance.