Sometimes we hear about liberal democracies (as opposed to illiberal democracies) as systems in which the state limits its actions toward citizens, who therefore remain masters of themselves. However, it seems to me that, regardless of specific aspects, this very framework is flawed, as it essentially opposes the individual (and often their property) to the state.
In reality, humans are social animals, but unlike bees or ants, they do not follow instinctive rules; they create their own rules, which vary infinitely across cultures.
It is not that the individual is only opposed to the state; instead, there are countless other societies more significant than the state. First and foremost, there is the nuclear family: the spouse with whom one shares a life (when things go well), the beloved children who become central, followed by the extended family—cherished grandchildren, siblings, grandparents, and so on. Most time is spent at school with teachers and classmates, then at work with colleagues and supervisors. Then there are countless optional groups: friends, social circles, church groups, political parties, associations. Additionally, there are countless authorities: from property managers to workplace leaders, mayors, and—important but not the most significant—the state with its many and infinite organs.
Thus, it is not a binary relationship between the individual and the state but a dynamic relationship between the individual and countless natural and optional social formations.

Another important point is that the individual and the community are not opposites. Society shapes us: what we think and who we are fundamentally depend on the culture we live in. If I, as a man of the 20th century, believe war is evil, women should not be harmed, and homosexuality is merely a variation, it is because society, in countless subtle ways, has ingrained this in me. Had I lived centuries ago, I would have had different, perhaps opposite, ideas.
On the other hand, society is shaped by individuals: everything we do within our family, school, workplace, social circle, or politics contributes to creating the world we live in. If the state punishes pedophilia, for example, it is because most of us find it abhorrent. Social rules, in essence, are our own, not imposed limits. However, given the infinite variety of perspectives, specific aspects can be contested, and thus society continuously evolves.
For instance, if I do not hit my wife, it is because today’s culture prohibits it, not just the law, which intervenes only in rare and exceptional cases.

In Homer’s time, Achilles enjoyed a woman whose family he had massacred, and he was celebrated as a great hero. Today, if I did something similar, I would be seen as a monster, and most importantly, I would perceive myself as one.

The opposition between the individual and the community is meaningless because the human individual is always part of a collective; without it, they are merely an abstraction. Conversely, the collective is the result of the individuals who compose it.
It is not a matter of wanting to influence others or not wanting to be influenced; it is a fact that occurs outside our awareness and will. Everything we do affects others, and everything others do affects us.

Certainly, in modern times, the cohesive and united world of the past has disappeared, and we are increasingly alone in the vast crowd. Nonetheless, I believe it is still possible, even using modern means, to connect with others, to be people and not mere individuals. The methods have changed, as has everything else. For example, I see many young people, a true army, engaging in volunteer work.

Democracy does not mean being masters of oneself, in the sense of being able to do whatever one wishes. Certainly not. In every society, one can only do what the rules (not just the laws) allow, and this is true for all societies, from primitive ones to advanced industrial ones, from dictatorial regimes to the most democratic.

Democracy, however, is characterized by pluralistic elections held in an atmosphere of freedom (even dictatorships usually hold elections). Thus, the true distinguishing factor is freedom of thought.
Obviously, no power can prevent me from thinking what I think. Freedom of thought, however, means the ability to express one’s ideas, to advocate for them, and practically to organize free associations, foundations, and groups. This freedom is the foundation, distinguishing modern democracy from other forms of political organization (absolutisms, dictatorships, communism, etc.).
Naturally, expressing one’s thoughts influences others and vice versa, but this is only possible within the limits of what society’s rules and laws permit. In democracy, as in any regime, we can only do what is allowed because it is deemed non-harmful. Therefore, self-ownership, understood as the primary right to do whatever one wishes, does not exist. If society decides, for example, that homosexuality is a crime, then regardless of my opinion, I cannot engage in homosexual relationships. This has been a reality for centuries, even in democracies (consider the case of Alan Turing in England).

Since ideas influence others, they can be harmful and thus prohibited, but democracy rejects such limitations except for a few exceptions (e.g., pedophilia, racism).

Self-Realization
The limit to the individual is not the community, but we are the community, and therefore the state is us.
We achieve self-realization within the community: the individual is an abstraction. Everything that happens in society shapes us, and everything each of us does shapes society.
The essential point is that we feel fulfilled within society, not outside of it. Humans feel fulfilled and happy when their behavior aligns with the culture they live in.

Everyone finds fulfillment as a father, husband, friend, worker, citizen, and so on—not in abstract individuality, which practically means nothing.
We need the esteem and approval of others.
I believe that when a person approaches the end of their life, they feel fulfilled if they believe they have been a good husband, a good father, a good worker, if they have helped and supported those in need—not if they have merely done what pleased them.