To break this down,
Two people live in proximity.
If both people are capable of freely engaging in whatever life they please without infringing in any way upon the other's ability to do so, then we have freedom unrestricted by circumstance.
If one person's engagement in their free choice of action infringes upon the other's free choice of action, then we have a need for compromise.
If a compromise is agreed upon that is acceptable to both people, then we have freedom consensually restricted by circumstance.
In preparation for restrictions to freedom caused by circumstance, it is wise for two people to agree upon a dispute resolution process. That way there is no conflict if ever an incompatibility arises that makes unrestricted freedom impossible. An independent and impartial third party is a sensible way to do this.
Say there is a disagreement about how to define that dispute resolution process, and one person says "we'll I've decided that my process is the one we're going with, and I have [more strength, better weapons, more people on my side, more intelligence by my own reckoning, or whatever else] to be able to enforce this process, so that's how it's going to be". The person uses the excuse that "if we don't have a dispute resolution process of some sort then we will have conflict and both of our freedoms will be infringed by that conflict, because we can't just have unrestricted freedom without a conflict eventually arising". It is then that person's fault that the other person's freedom is infringed, and that person has created the conditions, which may hypothetically have never come about if not for that person's arrogance, that cause the thing that he claims must be prevented.
A fair and impartial third party being agreed upon in advance by both parties in potential dispute is a good way to resolve disputes, but how to define who that third party is and what kind of process is undertaken by that third party if and when a dispute arises, that is the question at hand.
Now look at the difference between periodic democrats and interactive democrats.
Periodic democrats take interactive democrats' money and once every four years, an X in a box is used to determine how that money is spent.
Interactive democrats say "well why can't we pay our taxes to a legislative body that allows us to freely make our choices when we feel informed and ready instead of only once every four years?"
Periodic democrats say "because there has to be one method of dispute resolution about how taxes are spent or else we may have a conflict eventually, and we have more strength, more weapons, more people, and more intelligence by our own reckoning, so we've decided that our system is the one that's going to be used".
Interactive democrats say "but we've already agreed upon an independent and impartial third party to resolve disputes if your periodically elected government disagrees with the way our taxes are spent! Look at our society's External Legislation Registry! It acknowledges superior provincial courts as an independent and impartial third party in case there is ever a dispute between your periodically elected government and our interactively elected representatives!" (Pages 3 to 4:
http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads/ELR.pdf)
The periodic democrats say "it won't work anyway so there's not even any need to demonstrate that it won't work. We're smart enough to see that and your not so we've decided that you get one small bit of input into how your taxes are spent once every four years and the rest of the time pay your taxes or go to jail. It's the only sensible way to do it. Trust us, we know."
