The first question to ask is what exactly
is your definition of freedom. If it is the right to do whatever you want, then that would include theft, assault and even murder. But the flipside is that in
that freedom, you are impinging on the freedom of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the saying goes. This level of individual freedom was what reigned in despotic, tyrannical and anarchic states. Some people had more freedoms than others, as in they had the freedom to do what they wished at the expense of those 'below' them.
Nowadays, this concept seems barbaric, since we have been raised in an era of social freedom. Freedom with limits so that
everybody is treated the same. In other words, I can do whatever I please as long as it follows a set of rules (be it laws or widely accepted social morals) which were put in place to prevent me from taking another's freedom(s) away. This concept, in its most pure sense, is what is libertarianism. Ron Paul, (the former US presidential candidate the OP linked to) is a staunch libertarian. For the same reason he believes that the government has no role to play in things like drugs and abortion, because they are simply not government issues. His take is what people do with their own bodies is their own choice, and the government has no right to interfere. Even though as an individual he is against the two, as a government official, he understands he cannot use his position to impose his moral values on others (the primary reason I respect him so much).
But at the end of the day, we
do need a government to provide us with a foundation to help society and the human race as a whole to progress. Road networks is a good example to work with. It isnt feasible for people to make and maintain their own roads in front of their house or their route to work. Sharing of roadways also becomes an issue. And the economic impact of their being
no roadways is unthinkable in the modern world. Sure, they can be privatized, but unless its a guaranteed open market (ie, it doesnt end up as a monopoly) the company which 'owns' the roads has the right to not allow people who in some way may threaten its interests (read profit margin\stock value) to use it. Even if what these people are trying to do is for the betterment of their people. A lot of these problems with privatization of former government sectors are cropping up in the states, like weapons manufacturers, and electronic voting machines.
The main connection between freedom and democracy, is that the people have the freedom to chose who will represent them in the government. Theoretically, democracy should be a completely transparent system, and maybe it is, but the average citizen doesnt know what options are available to him and usually, they are comfortable in their ignorance. The freedom to chose your representative also includes the right to
not vote...as in you still have to go and vote, but then vote for no one. Not many people do this, nor do those holier-than-though 'voting-is-your-democratic-duty' campaigners tell you that its even an option. This represents what causes problems with democracy; the apathy or ignorance of the people to challenge what their government does. Not because information is inaccessible, but because its hard to find. Think of it like a book hidden away in some dark corner in a library that the librarian wont help you find, or you dont even know has been written.
I think I may have gone way off topic here, and I've lost my train of thought...hope it helps
