Democracy - Slavery for the Feeble-minded

My job as a Monarchist and true believer in Liberty is clear - I must in equal proportion advance the notion of the greatness of Monarchy and bash Democracy, the system entirely responsible for most of the Western World's problems. One way of showing what a oxymoron of a term "liberal democracy" is, is looking at the question of slavery and forced servitude in society. In a liberal society the ultimate goal is freedom of the individual. This is best defined by Herbert Spencer (as his greatest creation, the Law of Equal Liberty) "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other.". This is farily straight forward for most people. And because it is just such a plainly simple concept to grasp, I am baffled by the fact that so many people associate liberty with democracy. To best describe the way democracy is contrary to liberty is discussing forms of "people-ownership" in society, which comes in three varieties:
1. Nobody owns anybody else. This means each mature adult individual owns himself (or herself) and himself alone. He has no right to anybody else's life, liberty, or property (i.e. complete self-ownership).
2. Some people (or one person) own(s) some other people. This means that some individuals have the right to somebody else's life, liberty, or property. This could be for a variety of reasons, if an ethnic group is considered inferior for instance.
3. Everybody owns everybody else. In such a society every person has a say on what other people do (I am using a gross simplification here).
Plainly from these descriptions anyone can see that Monarchy can exist as either number 1 (which I fully support as true Monarchy - The Rule of Law) or number 2 (Absolute Monarchies). Another alternative for option 1 is anarcho-capitalism or natural order. Number 2 also contains a broad number of other systems and institutions such as some types of dictatorships, aristocratic rule (oligarchy for instance), or classic slavery (where the slave-owner has a full title to the slave as his property). Democracy, however, fits soundly into option 3. The people elect leaders who then rule them in a totalitarian fashion (for the duration of their term in office democratic leaders fit into option 2). Socialism and communism - two systems which don't acknowledge private property and self-ownership - are also everybody-owns-everybody societies.
Now, since we have established that liberty is self-ownership and democracy is contrary to self-ownership, we must conclude that there is no such thing as a liberal democracy. Democracy is a system which dresses mob-rule up in a fancy way and portrays it as something "superior" and "just to all". In relality democracy is has nothing to do with justice. In a democracy justice is a completely relative term which could mean something today and the opposite tomorrow. For example - alcohol prohibition. How is it possible that something that is considered normal today was outlawed? Or if it is not normal, why is it legal today? Either way you look at it, democracy is bad (either it forbids things which aren't evil, or permists things which are evil).