Freedom, Morality, and Property

I have been jarring my brain trying to think of a good way to present this.  So far, I haven't thought of one, so I'm going to do my best.

We have to start with the assumption that the original argument is a moral one, and not just a legal one.  The person who would argue this would believe it to be morally right to place freedom as the primary task of the government.

So let's pick up at 1*, which states that "Freedom is compromised by interference, unless that interference is to counter interference which isn't itself to counter interference."

So here we have interfering with freedom that is the primary concern.  The first question is, are there any moral circumstances that break this rule?  The notes used the money case, and I will reiterate my defense here and attempt to speak on the counter argument brought up (to the best that I understand it).

First, we have to accept that property rights are a moral freedom.  That someone can possess something to use as they wish (within established laws of freedom) and we have no right to use that thing or take it into our possession without their consent.  Their are cases where it is clearly not true that someone has a right to property, but these cases generally constitute the use of property to interfere with someone else's freedom. But in general, if we don't accept property rights as a moral freedom, what are the consequences?  It seems to depend on the interpretation.  Strict socialism doesn't believe in personal property (mostly).  But socialists still believe that somebody (the government) owns and controls that property, so they just change who has the right to the property.  A more extreme idea might be that nobody has any "right" to property.  This would make the idea of theft "obsolete".  Since you don't own the property, I can take it and use it just as much as you.  In this case, it might actually be morally wrong for us to prevent someone from taking something from us.  Because of this, I will continue with the assumption that property rights is a moral freedom.

So if property rights constitute a moral freedom, then by my theft of an apple at Walmart, I am violating the property rights of Walmart to own that apple, and use it as Walmart wishes (which includes selling the apple for whatever price they desire).  One could say "well Walmart still has a right to own the apple, even though I possess it" but I think that misses the idea of what ownership is.  How can I own something which I cannot possess and have any control over?  Once the apple is stolen, the thief can choose to eat the apple, or sell it, or do whatever they want to it, and Walmart no longer has any control over the use or fate of that apple.  This is a clear violation of Walmart's freedom to own that particular apple.

When we speak about trespassing, the only difference seems to be in the magnitude and length of violation.  If you own a computer (or land, it applies the same way), and I use it without your permission, I am infringing upon your right to control what happens to your computer.  You did not allow me to use it, but I used it anyways.  If you want to use it, and I refuse to let you, then it is even more clear that your possession is no longer under your control (even if the loss is temporary), and I have violated your freedom.  But it doesn't matter if you wanted to use it or not.  The fact is, it belongs to you, and not me, and so you have the freedom to choose who uses your computer and who doesn't, and I have just prevented you from doing so.  The magnitude in this case may be pretty low, but that doesn't negate that this is a violation of freedom.

So it seems to me that property rights easily fit under 1*, and this makes the idea of needing to present an argument of freedom plus property rights as incorrect.  Since 1* already covers restricting freedoms that would in themselves restrict freedom, and any violation of property rights is a restriction of freedom, then Cohen's second objection is already covered by 1*.

Interestingly, I don't see 1* as a very good "right" argument.  It would seem that a great many things that the "right" generally try to preserve are thwarted by this line of thinking.  Lack of gun control interferes with people's right not to have their lives taken by another.  Making gay marriage illegal seems like an obvious interference.  Preventing equal access to education and medical care seems to restrict people's freedoms to good education and opportunities for reasonable health care.  So I think the argument really stands on "what are moral rights?".  Do we have a moral right to good education and reasonable health care?  Do we have a moral right to not be dramatically undermined at birth in our pursuit of a good lifestyle by socioeconomic factors that were determined before we were born?  If we have these rights, then freedom from interference actually bolsters our claim to them, and we should embrace freedom for giving us the leverage to stand up and say that no, it's not OK for some people to have dramatically greater advantages in life that are independent of their own decisions while others suffer for the very same reasons.  Freedom from interference is our moral ally.

Please share your thoughts!  This is a rough thought cycle with very little research beforehand.  I would love to hear what I missed, or what you disagree with.