Libertarian Justice

In Michael Sandel’s Democracy Discontent he questions how the libertarian objection could be met when placed in a community setting.  Sandel notes,” The liberal case for public provision seems well suited to conditions in which strong communal ties cannot be relied on, and this is one source of its appeal. But it lies vulnerable nonetheless to the libertarian objection that redistributive policies use some people as means to others’ ends, and so  offend the “plurality and distinctness” of individuals that liberalism seeks above all to secure. (334)” Sandel confirms that some ethics of sharing under liberalism could function if everyone shared the same ideals, however humans acting as rational beings will have their own subjective agendas. Sandel states, “Its claim on me is not the claim of a community with which I identify, but rather the claim of an arbitrarily defined collectivity whose aims I may or may not share. (334)” If there is a neutral government on social matters then who would have the authority to hinder the liberties of the majority from overpowering the liberties of the minorities because they simply do not share the same aspires, such as Jim Crow laws?