(Return to main path )

Let me add something else. I said I think this sort of distinction is going to show up in other forms. Here's an example:

When we talk about the free market we can ask if people should have a strong right to whatever income they can sell their products or skills for on that market. I don't want to get ahead of the conversation, but I think that Dee will tell us that they do have such a right if there is no force or fraud involved in the transaction. John and others will agree to those conditions, but they will want more. Rawls, for example, insisted that certain background conditions be met in order for such market transactions to be just. I suspect that John will also suggest that some conditions beyond the absence of force and fraud be met.

My point is that Dee's libertarian views on property will carry with them fewer moral obligations to others than John's views. The question will arise over and over -- What do people with strong property rights to important kinds of property owe to others who have little or no such property? On a libertarian view the obligations are very modest. On a social democratic view, they are more considerable.