(Click here to continue on the main path)

I want to add something else. I value the negative liberty Dee is talking about, but it seems to me that negative liberty -- freedom from interference -- is often of very little value in itself.

The freedom to believe in the religion of your choice is valuable in itself. I think that's a case in which non-interference is enormously important. But there are other cases in which non-interference is a sham. If I am free to hire a lawyer to defend my rights, but I can't afford to do so, what good is my freedom? If I am free to travel, but I have no money, what difference does it make? In this case, non-interference provides only the illusion of freedom.

There are lots of cases in which the practical value of freedom understood as non-interference is little or nothing. To be of use, freedom must be "effective" freedom. I need to be able to exercise it. And that takes resources that many people don't have.