KANTradiction?

Ripstein contrasts Kant's non-determinate based theory with that of the Lockean/deontologist or utilitarian/egalitarian who is focused on outcomes. Public legal rules and institutions in a non-Kantian philosophy are justified by their ability to lead society toward predetermined moral/good-maximizing/etc outcomes. "The question," Ripstein writes, "of what results the state should aim to produce is prior to any question about the most effective means of producing it" (9). Kant rejects this framework, arguing instead that legal institutions are not justified because of outcomes but instead necessary because of the need to preserve "each person's entitlement to be his or her own master...consistent with the entitlement of others" (9). Thus, Kant claims supremacy over the other philosophers, because their philosophies are reliant upon the idea that "any particular situation is fully determinate" (9). I see his point when considering philosophers rooted entirely in public outcomes, eg: we need government to ensure equality of income distribution. However, his justification for government (public laws) is also rooted in an outcome, the preservation of each person's entitlement to be their own master. How is this superior to Locke's justification of civil society for the preservation of property (life, liberty and estate)? Kant may argue his theory of true freedom, in his case independence, is better than that put forth by Locke, but Ripstein/Kant seem to confuse philosophers with those implementing their ideas. There is fair criticism to leveled against Lockeans here, but it seems contradictory to criticize Locke himself.