I have become interested in the idea of paradox recently. Not logical paradoxes though, but when philosophical ideas are pursued consistently, and end up arguing against that position. The most basic of course is the relativists denial of truth leads to a truth claim, but let me give you two further examples of what I mean. I am not arguing that these positions should be viewed this way only giving examples of the type of reasoning I would be curious to see an analysis of.
Democracy is a system where divergent viewpoints are allowed to compete for dominance. Everyone active in a democracy is trying to get their viewpoint established as the one that is always dominate though. Thus people active in a democracy are always working for the practical end of it.
Libertarianism is a philosophy where people are free to make choices about their lives free from government coercion. Except they cannot then make the choice to establish a coercive government because that eliminates the idea of a Libertarian society. Thus there has to be some coercive order to prevent people from establishing a coercive order.
Where can I find literature that deals with why this kind of contradiction can occur within philosophies?