(Return to main path)

It seems to me that Dee has to do more than assert the value of liberty as non-interference. She has to argue for the moral priority of such liberty. In other words, she has to show that it will trump other moral and non-moral values.

Why is the protection of non-interference with property, for example, more important morally that saving lives by redistributing wealth? Certainly in the poorer countries a great many lives could be saved, and much human misery prevented, by land reform or higher taxes dedicated to health care, and so on.

We all think that non-interference is valuable, but why does it take priority over everything else?

And by the way, I think that Rawls has to argue for the priority of liberty too. Although he allows tradeoffs between liberty and other values in some cases, he refuses to do so when society is more affluent. Why?

This goes to a deep difference between libertarianism and utilitarianism. Libertarians give moral priority to rights. Utilitarians give moral priority to the good.