Few people defend freedom as a moral value. I’ve been reading Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal” in which she does just that. We can defend freedom or capitalism on a utilitarian bassis - greatest good for greatest number of people, but that opens us up to statistical manipulation or anecdotal evidence that show that some people are hurt by a free society.
Rand defends capitalism and freedom on a moral basis, and in the process shows how everyone benefits, and that the poor benefit to a much greater degree than do the rich.
I love Ayn Rand! :-) I agree with her maybe 98% of the time. My main problem with her is not what she says but how she says it.
Rand writes as a kind of prophet or cult leader (not scholar or philosopher), with a tone of voice and approach which doesn't sufficiently respect the mind of the reader. Basically she says, between the lines: "Accept my authority and take it on faith. All who disagree are low-lifes who are being intellectually cowardly and dishonest."
I disagree somewhat with the mentioned standard of political value (which comes from Jeremy Bentham) which is undefined, undefinable (in my view), and implicitly collectivist. The proper disideratum, IMHO, is "the greatest good of the individual."
P.S. I read her book on capitalism many a moon ago, and find it absolutely brilliant.
Remarkable is the hubris required for two-bit con men to take it away for some made-up "greater good."