There is nothing wrong with democracy

Proportional representation is better than fptp (direct democracy is better than presidential democracy) because it is easier to reject government proposals. With fptp we must accept the proposals of at least one of the major parties... as with a presidential (or mayoral) system. With pr we don't need to accept any of the mainstream proposals and our vote will still count... in effect we can vote for libertarians or geolibertarians and we will be able to force out conventional politicians. With fptp the conventional politicians keep getting elected. Being able to reject the least bad of two politicians is not as good as being able to reject all of them. With pr we can reject all politicians and all government... we can vote for a libertarian. There is nothing wrong with being able to vote for a libertarian... or anyone. There is nothing wrong with democracy.

Government is pointless if it is not proportional

The purpose of government is to protect minorities and the individual but fptp fails to do this. Proportionality protects the individual which is what the government is meant to do. If government is not proportional it is not protecting the individual. Government is pointless if it does not protect the individual and so it is pointless if it is not proportional.

Fptp is proof govt doesn't care about minorities

It's not possible to care about minorities and not care about the individual because the smallest minority is the individual. If the government doesn't care about the individual it does not care about minorities. And the reverse is true: If it does not care about minorities it does not care about the individual.

Fptp is proof the government doesn't care about minorities because to not care about the individual (as with fptp) is to not care about minorities because the concerns of the two are synonymous.

To prefer pr is not proof of socialism

The paradox of democracy is that democracy is good but we need to cheat to get proportional outcomes. If democracy is truly good we would not need to cheat.

Democracy can be broken down into concerns over land and non-land property. Democracy does not concern land disputes because no one can own land without the approval of others with or without democracy so democracy makes no difference. It is over matters concerning personal (non-land) property which democracy claims to have authority... but no such authority exists and so democracy is a false concept. Democracy is not good and so the paradox of democracy rests on a false premise.

If democracy is good we would not need to cheat to provide proportional outcomes. But even someone who dislikes democracy can prefer pr to fptp... to prefer pr is not proof of socialism.

Fptp and frb should be against the constitution

If there is a government it should not practice either fptp or frb.

Banks are rich because they can print money

Fractional reserve banking means that there is a difference between narrow money and broad money. Unless this situation persists (which we will come back to) then that leaves one of two options available: we can either i) Monetise all the credit leading to an inflation of narrow money so that existing broad money becomes narrow money... or ii) Let the banks fail and experience a financial crash. Since neither of these is palatable we tend to go on in a neutral position with both narrow and broad money (and fractional reserve banking) existing.

Fractional reserve banking exists if there is a difference between narrow and broad money... if such a thing as broad money exists.

Since fractional reserve banking (frb) persists and broad money exists then banks are able to issue something of value which normal companies are not able to do. This situation is equivalent to banks being able to print government narrow money unless a crash is possible. If a crash is not possible then banks effectively print money. Even if a banking crash is possible being able to print broad money in the short term is very similar to being able to print cash... even if eventually there will be a crash. It's not very much preferable to the rest of us for banks to only be able to print broad money (and not cash) than for them to be able to print cash. If banks could print cash it would not be much worse.

Fractional reserve banking would only be different from outright counterfeiting if we can expect there to be a banking crash... otherwise it is equivalent. Frb is counterfeiting unless there will be a bank run and a crash of the financial system. If there is not a crash it is counterfeiting.

This means that due to their privileged legal status banks (together with their customers) are able to accrue wealth merely by increasing the money supply... rather than by conventional free-market means. If a fiat currency is imposed on the population then anyone who can print that currency will find it easy to acquire wealth. Banks are not poor because they can print money. Banks are rich because of deposit insurance.

Wealth is finite on a finite planet so it is a problem if banks can print their own money because they will be able to control an excess of the scarce resources. It is a problem if agents within the economy can print money... counterfeiting is a problem because it is not fair on the rest of the population. Counterfeiting is unfair.

There is no such thing as tactical voting

Tactical voting is a myth. People who claim to vote tactically (using fptp) merely to reject the other mainstream fptp party are still endorsing a mainstream party so this is not tactical voting. We are not voting tactically if we vote for a mainstream party. We only vote tactically if we reject the mainstream parties. And if it is possible to reject the mainstream parties (as with pr) then we are not voting tactically... either.