The paper suggests and defends a principled way to strike a balance between the two conflicting demands for individual sovereignty and the possibility to address politically matters affecting the many. Revisiting the debate on liberal neutrality and drawing on the Rawlsian distinction between liberty and what gives worth to liberty, it is argued that policies affecting liberty must always be neutral in aim, while policies affecting the distribution of the resources giving worth to liberty need not. This way, we restrict the means available to pursue political goals rather than the range of permissible goals itself. We thereby allow for political influence over a wide array of matters, but leave the final right to decide to the individual herself. Having outlined some of the advantages of such a view, it is suggested that liberal theory henceforth should pay less attention to what the state may do, and more to how the state may do what it sets out to do.