You have not even begun to elucidate exactly how “liberal democracy” guarantees freedom. Apparently all you can do is simply repeat this bare assertion. But you backpedaled from that very bare assertion in the “Negative Rights Restrict Liberty” thread, now didn’t you? So tell me, what does “liberal democracy” actually do in your opinion, and how does it do it?
How about you be so kind as to share with the rest of us your determination of what constitutes a “higher-order democracy”? That way we can determine whether it actually makes any sense at all.
Your statements leave me with next to no idea of what you mean by “democracy” - “higher-order” or otherwise. What do you see as the necessary connection between voting for rulers (which is typically what’s meant by “democracy” these days) and greater freedom/rights?
There is conflict within anarchic society? Necessarily? I’m still waiting for your proof of this.
I see no reason to do that. It’s not like you won’t make your determination regardless. How about you explain to me what voting has to do with “individual rights”. Obviously there have existed governments which allowed “their” citizens to vote and yet practiced chattel slavery and denial of citizenship to women and/or other groups.
Once you actually provide your definition of “(higher-order) democracy”, I think your position will be a lot clearer to the rest of us. But I won’t hold my breath for that.
See above.
The only ideological blindness and hatred that I see in this thread is coming from you, buddy.
Again, regarding our recognition and appreciation of “democratic peace theory” - funny that here you call it a “theory” when you’ve clearly been presenting it as fact - maybe it’ll be easier for us to recognize (if not also appreciate) its efficacy when we actually understand what it is.