@Petey Bee



Firstly, "autonomy guarantees" --you are right-- refer to what I described in another point of my comment as "rationalized rules". In other words, yes, democracy is about "rationalized autonomy guarantees," or "majoritarian autonomy guarantees".



I agree to rights complementing democratic institutions, but in a revocable way (by democratic majority). I would also agree that rights must have higher status to common law, but not as high as democratic principles; "status" refers exactly to how easy or difficult it is to revoke them. The reason is that, in my view, it is far more important to preserve the guarantees of majority-rationalized rules than to introduce minority inclusion and, especially if you want to introduce such inclusion, majority-rationalized rules are endangered by powerful minorities (which includes people with knowledge, connections, or money).



Thus, we can discuss as much liberalism as anyone can imagine, under the precondition that majority-rationalized rules are not jeopardized. No other way is acceptable to me. In effect, I would support introducing, in a democratic process, an explicit step of considering the possibility of complementing or moderating a decision (a law), in order to provide more space for minorities and even special interests; but it would still have to be under the control and final say of the majority.



There are two more issues that I am aware about and are important "for a society that's going to last". The first is the issue of legitimacy of political participation: who is considered a citizen and when. This becomes more and more important, as emigration (e.g. for work) and refugees become commonplace. This is a common decision, for a democratic system and, probably, it is my personal preferences that make it appear so important.



The second is much more fundamental. It is about how and when, still in the *written in law* institutions, the majority can question its own political system and decide on its change. This has become important for me, because of the way modern "democracies" do not address it and actually avoid it, which has become very problematic and oppressive for me. I believe a system like Switzerland 's, where citizens can bring about a referendum on constitution change with compulsory outcome, is the appropriate answer to this. I do not know if in Switzerland this can change any part of the constitution, but I believe, such referenda should be intended to change *anything* the majority brings forward; even the essence of the political system and democratic principles.