I take (special) issue with the last point on economic 'democracy'. Is this not problematic to claim, Im not sure what liberty entails to you  but  it does go to the crux of the issue - who determines where the 'private-public' divide lies and how is the appropriation of what I would argue are public goods for the public good in anyway antithetical to 'liberty' while the unregulated concentration of wealth with the one percent is not. When Pfizer robs indigenous peoples of the rights to their medicinal plants by 'patenting' and deeming them 'their' property to sell exclusively why is that not contestable as a loss of liberty? In fact the true arbiters of free market fundamentalism (the Chicago school) readily embraced brutally repressive authoritarian regime (i.e., Chile) to exert their ideas in an environment free of opposition. I would argue truly (unregulated) free markets and (true) democracy are (ultimately) antithetical as the concentration of wealth leads to the concentration of power.