> By my definition You're using a different definition than Thiel is. His definition is simply a description of a system. If a country is a representative dem

> By my definition You're using a different definition than Thiel is. His definition is simply a description of a system. If a country is a representative democracy or a direct democracy, where each person gets to vote, then it's a democracy by definition. Your definition pertains to an outcome of a system, such as equality. Neither of these are wrong definitions, since they're both commonly used in regular conversation, but you are talking at cross purposes. Under his definition, which is what we should be talking about if we're addressing this in good faith, democracy (the system) and freedom are at odds because democracy is just majority rule. Women who can't get an abortion, rich people that have to give up 50% of their money, minorities that are discriminated against in law, victimless crimes being prosecuted (weed), and so on. These are examples of the majority using their vote to strip the freedoms and property and time of other people. Each day that I go to work, 1/2 of my day goes directly to the state, merely because a majority of the electorate thinks they are entitled to it. This isn't literal slavery (where 100% instead of 50% of my time is taken from me), but it's certainly not freedom when 1/2 of my productive energy is taken from me by threat of prison time if I do not comply.