Nice article. A somewhat tangential comment, but do you use this three sets of rights taxonomy as a discursive mechanism or do you think it is actually a valid analytical conception of 'liberalism'? It seems ill suited to the latter. There are certainly lots of aspects of liberalism that come under the heading of rights: property, habeus corpus, no arrest without charge etc. But some of the most fundamental aspects of liberalism (certainly within the historical context of its emergence in Britain and France) do not easily fit under the rubric of rights: The separation of powers is not a right; the harm principle is not a right; tolerence is not a right (though freedom of worship is I suppose); the rule of law in the sense that the government is bound by the law is not a right; fallibilism is not a right; meritocracy is not a right. Most of these things could more appropriately be grouped under the heading of 'values'. It would seem to me that part of the puzzle you are looking at is how the informal institution of values buttresses the formal institution of rights as imbedded in legal doctrine and practice. It seems to me that values often develop as people have positive experiences of rights, or at least in Tandem. The British experience of liberalism took hundreds of years of back and forth dialogue between formal institutions and informal values to be bedded down, and now we see some of these things unravelling simply because we don't teach them anymore (I am thinking in particular of freedom of speech giving way to a censorious culture across the Anglosphere). I would hazard to guess that the inability of liberalism to consolidate itself in democracies is because people don't have liberal values. Democracy gives everyone a piece of power - that's easy to value. Liberalism checks everyone's power equally - that's much harder to get behind. People assume that they can wrest control of the state apparatus from the evil or idiotic. They fail to realise that the evil and idiotic tend to be the most industrious among humanity.