There are fundamental rights, and they have to be black/white, because they protect the minority against the majority. For everything else, it is decided on by

There are fundamental rights, and they have to be black/white, because they protect the minority against the majority. For everything else, it is decided on by elected representatives. If you operate in a political system where democracy can overrule all rights, it is not a liberal democracy. The US is a liberal democracy, and that is why the judge ruled that it was not constitutional, even though the democratically elected representatives put in place the watch-list. So here is a great example of liberty at play, even though the majority ruled to have a watch-list, it was ruled out because it went against the fundamental rights of a minority. > You can pay service to "liberty" all you want, but I can't "give myself my own laws" that allow me to go against the state. You can! You can freely renounce your citizenship and freely move elsewhere. The state is not allowed to hold you back from doing that. Now, when it comes to secession, it gets more complicated. Some people argue it is a fundamental right, as per the constitution, that said, the wording is very vague and unclear about it. So we could say the constitution doesn't really guarantee that you are free to secede. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a guaranteed right though! Some people think it should, and if it isn't there in the constitution, maybe it should be added. > The state will always serve as an impediment against freedom and true self determination That's the thing though. The state are just the powers that be. The idea of liberty and freedom are moral, which is why it requires a culture of it. While democracy is a system, not a moral. People who believe in liberty fight for it. That's fundamental to preserve freedom. The freedom to "give myself my own laws" should exist. Any person should be allowed to take their private property and secede from the US, and make it a new self-ruled region. If California wants out for example, they should be allowed to leave the union. Such would dictate the idea of liberty. But, it would work similar to copy-left open source licenses. In their new found independence, they need to continue to uphold liberty. If they do not, then it is a fundamental right that the newly governed should similarly fight for it until they have it. So you see, it is much more an ideology. People should not be allowed to restrain your freedoms, unless what you are doing is forcing theirs to be restrained. And this can work quite easily within a democracy. Basically, people assemble for all kind of matters, and decisions and rules are put in place in agreement with the majority, with the idea that it will benefit most. Once in a while though, it affects an individual negatively. It is that person's right to come forward and say that their liberty is being restrained from the ruling of the majority. If true, then the ruling should be abolished, even though it was beneficial to most people.