 For a long time, classical liberals and libertarians insisted that, in fact, justice was only about rights. If you have the rights of self-owning individuals protected, then whatever happens and whatever patterns emerge in society, those patterns will ipso facto be just as though markets define what justice says. I think that's a mistake. I mean, I think there have been critics of liberalism, critics of classical liberalism such as G.B. Shaw, whose politics I don't like, but who had a point when he said things like, for these classical liberals, justice is the right to have tea at the ritz, only for those who can afford it. Classical liberals, I think, sell ourselves short and we sell our tradition short if we think we're only about rights. We're about rights first and foremost, absolutely, but we can also be concerned for wider considerations such as how people do, how do working people do in a free society? Does capitalism create a structure by way of having these rights that also produces benefits that are part of the system itself that we could claim is our benefits as moral advantages of our system? And I think for liberals to move beyond rights, to talk about distributional concerns and the distributional advantages and productive advantages for the working poor of capitalism would be a strong and important move for us to make.