I am keen on liberty as a central principle and analytic fulcrum, and I depend deeply on the communities organized around such focal points. But I think the sacred things of liberalism are better served by Adam Smith and his community. Smith’s tradition allowed principles to admit of exceptions and yet still be principles. David Hume and Adam Smith belonged to a tradition that formulated things in terms of by-and-larges and associated presumptions – much like the presumption of innocence.
I share David Friedman’s point of view.
The implications of my moral intuitions are not as tidy as the theories of Rand or Rawls or, for that matter, Bentham. But then, I know of no a priori reason to expect the truth, in moral philosophy or anything else, to always be simple.