The popularity of liberalism will not eliminate those with opposing views, and as a result, peace is never guaranteed

• In a realistic world, there will be people with opposing viewpoints. This will likely vary from generation to generation. This means that liberalism will likely not dominate across the world, but be popular in certain areas and at certain times.
• There may be more extreme versions of liberalism that may result in wars and violence. Just as there is extreme far-right groups, there can and have been many extreme far-left groups.
• Furthermore, new political ideas and political movements are constantly being created so people may have new political beliefs or be adjusting their positions on the political spectrum

Liberalism, insofar as it dispenses with war, probably does make the world more peaceful.

• Liberalism tends to invoke international institutions as a means for mitigating illiberalism's restrictive effects on interstate cooperation.

• More interstate cooperation means less war, generally.

• However, quintessentially liberal states may be more likely to go to war with non-liberal states, which could mean liberalism as a tenet to be followed might prove the opposite of its intentions.

• Liberalism, interestingly, sees some hope for even states of "anarchy". As long as there remains the possibility for states to seek common ground and form alliances to deal with world powers, true world peace is theoretically still quite attainable.

• Liberalism seems to be capable of encompassing as well as accommodating fairly nicely a very wide range of possible states of the world.

• It makes some sense, then, to assign greater peace to furthered senses and actions of liberalism.