The article argues that, contrary to what contemporary neoliberalism holds true, the individual and the collective are not the extremes of an antithesis that requires us to choose one or the other. It examines the political debate of the second half of the Victorian Era regarding the pertinence and limits of State intervention. On the basis of the work of a thinker whose position on negative freedom will mark the history of positive liberalism and collectivism, the article concludes that the ideology inherited and continued by the tradition of European political liberalism is not neoliberalism, but rather, socialism.