"You want examples, mhaze?"

Yep and I'm still waiting....seriously your examples are HK under the thumb of the most powerful authoritarian regime in history, Singapore which has "limited electoral competition" ie a democracy and some handwaving about all the civil liberties in Medieval Europe. If that's the best Grok could find for you then it rather makes my point.

If Venezuelans are to have liberty they have to first have democracy, despite all the hand-waving. If the US helps deliver democracy then they'll have helped deliver liberty. Libertarians will cheer that. Those who value anti-US attitudes over the welfare of people will have a differing view.

This is now just goalpost-shifting, mhaze.

You asked for examples of personal liberty outside democracy. You didn't ask for libertarian utopias, perfect freedom, or regimes you personally approve of. You asked whether liberty can exist outside democracy. The answer is plainly yes, and the examples demonstrate that.

Hong Kong pre-2020 had extensive personal, economic and civil liberties without democracy. Its loss of liberty came from authoritarian intervention, not from lack of elections. Dismissing that because China eventually crushed it proves the opposite of your point.

Singapore is not a liberal democracy in the sense you're using the term. It has elections, but limited political competition, restricted speech, and dominant-party rule. Yet it still sustains significant personal and economic liberties. That directly falsifies your claim that liberty "can't exist" outside democracy.

And no, pointing out that liberal civil liberties historically preceded mass democracy isn't "hand-waving". It's a basic fact of political history. Democracy emerged from liberty, not the other way around.

What you're now arguing is something much simpler and much less libertarian:

If democracy doesn't exist, coercion by a powerful external state is justified to create it, and that coercion is "always right".

That's not libertarianism. It's moral consequentialism with a geopolitical preference. Calling it "helping deliver liberty" doesn't change that.

Again, you're free to hold that view. Just stop pretending it rests on libertarian principle rather than on approval of the outcome and the actor delivering it.

By the way, Grok is right-leaning, so I only use him as an arbitern when my opponent is also right-leaning. I've explained this before. But thanks for the insult-by-proxy.

Shall I call on our little friend again?

HK. What freedom it had was due to its flawed democracy. Once that went, so did its freedoms.

Singapore is a democracy. Not as democratic as most western nations but democratic nonetheless. Your squibbing like "limited electoral competition" shows you know this also.

Your claims about Medieval Europe are laughable and show someone desperately clutch for straws that aren't there.

"Just stop pretending it rests on libertarian principle"

I never said that. But overthrowing an illegitimate authoritarian regime to try to restore democracy isn't antithetical to libertarianism. I doubt you understand the difference.

If you saw Rubio's recent stint in Congress you'll see multiple reasons for the action, one of which was restoring democracy.

"Grok is right-leaning,"
On some matters. Not others.

"Shall I call on our little friend again? "

Go ahead if it sooths your wounded pride. But every time you do just shows how you don't understand how these AI bots work.

We're now just going in circles, mhaze.

You keep redefining "democracy" until any case of liberty outside your preferred model is ruled out by definition. That's not argument, it's tautology. If "liberty outside democracy doesn't count because it must secretly be democracy", then your claim is unfalsifiable.

Hong Kong's freedoms did not derive from democratic rule. They derived from rule of law, constrained executive power, and institutional limits on coercion. Those can exist without democracy, and history shows they often preceded it. Saying "once democracy went, freedom went" simply assumes what you're trying to prove.

Singapore calling itself a democracy doesn't help you either. The point was never whether elections exist, but whether liberty is reducible to electoral mechanics. It isn't. Democracies routinely violate liberty, non-democratic systems have sometimes protected it.

And you are now retreating from your own earlier claim. You explicitly said coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right". That is not libertarian reasoning. It's outcome-driven moralism. Calling it "not antithetical to libertarianism" doesn't make it so.

At this point the disagreement is clear: You treat democracy as a moral solvent that cleanses coercion. I don't.

//On some matters. Not others.//

You're making that up, which is why you won't specify when it is right-leaning and when it is not. Nor will you explain how.

You're the one who redefined Singapore's democracy as "limited electoral competition" and now you accuse me of doing what you routinely do. Projection lives.

"And you are now retreating from your own earlier claim. You explicitly said coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right".

Yes its always right. That doesn't mean its the sole or main reason for doing it. But doing it is compatible with libertarianism. I predicted you wouldn't understand it... you're becoming predictable.

"you won't specify when it is right-leaning and when it is not"

If I'm asked to do so on a particular issue, happy to do it.

BTW, out of interest I asked Grok to find Medieval European societies where libertarian-like systems existed outside democracy. It came back with "Icelandic Commonwealth, ~930–1262 CE". Pretty funny. You base your claims on that? Mere hand-waving doesn't come close to describing it.

This is now very simple, mhaze.

You say coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right", and that this is compatible with libertarianism. That is the entire disagreement.

Libertarianism is defined by limits on coercion. Once coercion is declared "always right" whenever the goal is approved, there is no limiting principle left. The harm principle is gone. Non-aggression is gone. What remains is outcome-based moral licensing.

Calling that "compatible with libertarianism" doesn't make it so. It just empties the term of meaning.

At that point, debating Singapore, Hong Kong, or medieval Iceland is beside the point. You are defending consequentialism. I am defending constraints on power.

We're not misunderstanding each other. We're disagreeing at the level of first principles.

//BTW, out of interest I asked Grok to find Medieval European societies where libertarian-like systems existed outside democracy. It came back with "Icelandic Commonwealth, ~930–1262 CE". Pretty funny.//

I never claimed medieval Europe was libertarian, or even libertarian-like. I claimed that liberty is not logically dependent on democracy, and history shows liberties often pre-dated democratic institutions. Mocking Iceland doesn't touch that argument.

//You base your claims on that?//

Clearly not. But you've gone and used it as a red herring anyway.