The Strange Case of the Protective Perimeter: Liberties and Claims to Non-Interference

In this paper I aim at pointing out some difficulties raised by the so-called thesis of the protective perimeter of liberties (ToPP), that is: the thesis according to which: neither a privilege necessarily involves a claim to non-interference, nor a claim to non-interference necessarily presupposes a privilege. As to the first aspect of the thesis, I argue that it relies on a misleading concept of ‘interference with a liberty’, which surfaces in the examples to which the thesis is made applicable. As to the second aspect of the thesis, I argue that the idea of someone having a claim to be unimpeded in wronging another person is a misleading description of the situation taken into consideration.