This is quite simply a ridiculous post:
There's nothing inherently good about "liberty" if by "liberty" you mean "to be more free".
Of course there is. Individuality is one of the most fundamental elements of the human condition. Every human being has their own unique traits, abilities, appearance etc. In accordance with this, it is ideal that each individual is accorded the maximal ability to make decisions that reflect their unique natures. Liberty is therefore 'natural'. Individual liberty empowers people to think and act as they choose to, within mutual boundaries of course. This encourages individual sovereignty, or governance over oneself; your uniqueness as an individual means that you are
prima facie entitled to this control. Your best interests are whatever you perceive them to be.
More free to do what? More free to kill (the liberty to kill at will)?
More free to do a variety of things. Liberty can be defined in three principle ways: economic liberty (freedom to allocate your economic resources as you see fit), social liberty (freedom to make physical or social decisions that affect your own life as you see fit), and political liberty (freedom to contribute to the way society is run and organised). Related to this idea of 'social liberty' are concepts such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Of course, liberty does not equal license to do whatever one wishes. Writers such as John Stuart Mill advocated the 'harm principle', which stipulated that one could only exercise their liberties insofar as they did not impede upon anybody else's. Obviously, there is no such thing as a 'freedom to kill', as by killing someone you blatantly infringe upon their individual right to decide whether or not to remain alive.
Liberty for whom? The landowners felt their liberty were at risk when their property (the slaves) were taken from them.
Liberty for all. Slavery is obviously an institution which is not consonant with liberty; it undermines the ability of the slave to be equal to the 'free man' before the law, as the slave is regarded as incapable of, or not entitled to, exercise(ing) their own liberties - an absurd proposition. The arguments of landowners who feared their 'liberty' was simply based on an ignorance of the harm principle which I explained above - they were obviously infringing upon the individual liberty of their slaves. The only way that a curtailment of the harm principle can be authorised between individuals is through a voluntary and mutual contract which involves the abridgement of the liberty of one (or both) parties.
And lastly, how do we express "liberty", an idea, into policy? Why the best means of doing so we have ever found is through democracy. And to fully exploit liberty - most freedom to do most things by most people possible, it would have to be a pure unadulterated one man one vote democracy, or an anarchy.
Policy which prioritises liberty comes in many forms. Democracy is certainly not the 'best means', as it is impossible to suggest that one type of liberty (e.g. political liberty) is objectively more important than other types. Although democracy is generally seen as a facilitator of liberty (and vice versa), a benevolent dictatorship which emphasises social and economic liberty at the expense of political liberty is theoretically conceivable. YOur last point about the relationship between the 'full exploitation of liberty' and direct democracy (which is not necessarily anarchy) is a simple
non sequitur, as direct democracy would inevitably result in the restriction of the liberties of minorities in the face of majority rule, also known as the 'tyranny of the majority'.
In short, I think you need to do some serious reading on this subject.
