Voting is for slaves

Voting makes the government look good

The voting system is chosen by govt not the people

All voting systems are bad for the people

The government is weak against crime if it uses fptp

First past the post leads to weak government because not enough information gets into the system... which means the government doesn't know how to react to events. With pr people's concerns are directly represented which means it is easier for the government to protect people from crime.

With fptp the government is ineffective and weak at preventing crime.

Pr is preferable if the following three claims are true

The three assumptions which prove that it is better to have pr than fptp:

i) Democracy is bad for the government
Democracy is bad for the government because it gives people a choice over how they are ruled. If there is a government then democracy is a constraint on its ambitions.

ii) Government is bad
Government is essentially bad because it has a legal monopoly on the use of force which other public entities (such as firms and charities) do not. There is never a requirement to be aggressive and ownership of people is false so governments are bad.

These first two claims establish that democracy is something good. If something is bad for a bad thing then it is good.

iii) Pr is more democratic than fptp
Pr is more democratic than fptp because with pr voters can vote for their favourite candidate without having to consider how the rest of the population will vote. When tactical voting comes into play then we begin to consider voting for people we do not like... which is undemocratic.

If pr is not good then at least one of the above must be false.

Deposit insurance is bad for the people

The government and the people are against each other because the government treats banks differently from the rest of the economy. There is a kind of economic apartheid because banks have deposit insurance and the rest of the economy does not have this advantage. Having deposit insurance means that banks cannot fail. It is not in the interests of the people for banks to be immune from failure because (in effect) this means that banks can print money since government liabilities are money. The existence of deposit insurance shows that the government is antithetical to the interests of the people. Government is hurting people if there is deposit insurance.

Fptp and frb are internal problems of the government

The ease of winning the argument is not always in proportion to the nature of the cruelty. There are two arguments in particular which are difficult to establish... one is fractional reserve banking and the other is first past the post. These two problems share the characteristic that they both concern the government and importantly they both are concerned with the internal affairs of the government. It is easy to find the inconsistency and hypocrisy of government aggression but when the complaint concerns only the government then the argument is difficult to win. It is like complaining about what is being offered by a private firm. Only the government has a legitimate complaint about the (internal affairs of the) government so to have a valid complaint you must be a loyalist but then you would have no reason to complain.

First past the post and pr are very different

Only if fptp and pr are the same would it be consistent to defend fptp. If it makes no difference then we might as well keep the system we have grown accustomed to. But if there is a difference and we know that government is constrained by democracy then we would want to be sure of having the best possible type of democracy for a good life. Since there is little argument that fptp is not the best system (democracy is about choice) then to establish an argument in favour of reform all we need to do is to establish that there is a difference. Once this is established and shown then the motivation for reform becomes obvious.

First past the post does not prevent big government

First past the post anarchists and libertarians often make the claim that without fptp government would be more expansive... that it is the fptp parties (particularly on the right) which prevent big government. But if we examine this claim it cannot be true because under every type of electoral system the governing parties still need to get elected. If the people were in truth strongly opposed to small government those fptp parties who want that would never get elected. If the people want more government than the politicians there is no voting system which will prevent big government because the politicians are powerless to prevent it since to stop it they need to get elected. However if the politicians want more government than the people this is possible if the voting system doesn't allow the people to get what they want. Only if the voting system is unfair do the people not get what they want... and if the people want big government fptp will not hinder that because there will always be a party of the left which panders to that. Fptp does not prevent big government and to claim otherwise is to suggest the electorate is to the left of the centre-left fptp party which cannot be the case. Unfair electoral systems can only ever deliver more government than the people want... not less. If people want big government then under any system they will be able to get it. If people want small government it might be true that fptp prevents this.

Fractional reserve banking is like diluting shares

There is nothing wrong with the government or the central bank (and member banks) extending their balance sheets by practicing qe... and by extension frb. To do this is not offensive because no one owns the balance sheet of the government (it is a private firm) and our only complaint is that of a shareholder complaining about a share dilution... frb is not aggressive and so we have nothing to complain about.

Fractional reserve banking is not worse than qe

Banks are trusted because of deposit insurance

Money is a public liability

The government is enabling banks to print money because it gives them deposit insurance.

Deposit insurance shares rich liabilities with the poor

Where there is a lack of freedom there is a problem

It would be progressive for the government to default on deposit insurance and allow people to be free of the banks. It is because of deposit insurance that the liabilities of the banking sector are shared with the taxpayer.

Fiat currencies are vulnerable to frac res banking

The government is unaware that banks can't fail

The state fails to inform people that 'banks' can't fail

Most people assume what appear to be banks are each a private company and can fail and the government does nothing to address this misconception... it does not inform people that 'banks' are in fact part of the state. This lack of action is similar to actively pretending to be a private bank.

The state pretends not to be the state

The state pretends not to be what people generally assume is a bank.

The state pretends to be a bank

Most people do not realise what they think is a bank is actually part of the state.

If banks have deposit insurance they are not banks

If banks have deposit insurance there is no frb

Deposit insurance makes frb worse

Fractional reserve banking is printing money always

Fractional reserve banking is printing money whether or not the government guarantees the excess credit. There is no circumstance in which frb is not printing money. If the deposits are guaranteed by the government and there is a fiat currency then depositors will have little reason to withdraw their funds even if they know the bank is insolvent. If the bank does not have any support from the government and frb is legal then frb is still printing money because people have not yet withdrawn their money forcing a bank run and so whilst perhaps only for a short time the bank is printing money. If frb is illegal the bank is printing money whether or not people know about it.

People don't want more government and so pr is good

If pr is bad then people want more government

Tactical voting is bad because people don't want govt

The fptp parties would be unelectable under pr

Tactical voting is evidence that... the fptp parties would be unelectable under pr.

Democracy reduces the size of government

Without tactical voting there would be no government

We can assume that in a system of direct democracy very few laws would pass. In such a system there would be something equivalent to a referendum on any legislation which would require the approval of at least half of the electorate. This is a more onerous burden that to receive the support of half of the elected officials... especially when they are elected under first past the post. The problem with fptp is that elected officials know that their voters are 'forced' to vote for one of the leading parties or risk wasting their vote. The two main parties benefit from tactical voting and because of this the parties get more support than their natural base. It is because of this false support that extra laws get passed. If we think of direct democracy as a form of civilised anarchy then the only government that exists is due to fptp and without fptp there would be no government.

Freedom is impossible under first past the post

Fptp means we have just two parties to choose from and we must vote tactically to prevent the more malign party from getting elected. With pr the choice is broader to the extent that we are not really 'represented' in that our views align well with the candidate we choose. Pr is very much like direct democracy in outcome... and direct democracy is similar to anarchy in that even in an anarchist society we might envisage referendums to work out how best to live and whether any laws are required. Referendums in an anarchist society would serve to remind socialists that laws are bad and freedom is good. Fptp is very far from either anarchy or direct democracy. We are certain to be governed by one or other of the main parties... freedom is never possible.

Proportional representation is not irrelevant

Democracy is bad for the state

Advocating pr doesn't mean you are a statist libertarians and anarchists can advocate pr... it would be strange for someone who is against the state not to want more democracy.

Fptp is the reason the electorate find it difficult to refuse the government. Pr gives people more choice which enables them to choose less government. Choice is good even if it means choosing government because even if we are choosing a bad thing choice means we can choose less of it. In any situation some choice is better than no choice.

Proportional representation makes govt impossible

Government is possible because fptp doesn't give people enough choice. If people are given choice they will not choose to give the government power over themselves... they will only choose to give the government power in areas which do not affect them.

First past the post does not give people enough choice

Proportional representation is bad for government

First past the post (in contrast to pr) is the type of democracy which gives the least choice to the voter and so leads to the most government.

People do not choose to be slaves. (Slavery is not a choice.)

Being asked a yes-or-no question in a referendum is not the same as being asked to choose between two different political parties. The former is the natural form of direct democracy but the latter involves promoting a party to vote on your behalf with little choice. It is not a case of accepting or rejecting a proposed new law instead we choose one or another government. Proportional representation is (more) like not having a representative because we can find someone who agrees with our views. If representative democracy is not proportional then it becomes less like direct democracy and less free. To make representative democracy less offensive it should be proportional. If representative democracy is not proportional this leads to problems.

If banks can print money they are the same as govt

It is an empirical fact that banks print money if the credit of fractional reserve banks trades at parity with cash. Whether this fact is due to the presence of government deposit insurance or if it is for other reasons we cannot know... unless we remove deposit insurance which would not be popular. Banks print money if unbacked credit is worth more than zero. They might not be able to print money if they were without deposit insurance but we can only speculate. People might trust banks for reasons we do not know about.

Frb would not be a problem without fiat currencies

When fiat currencies are not being used then fractional reserve banking will no longer be possible... frb relies on fiat currencies to be possible. If fiat currencies exist then it is likely that so too will fractional reserve banking exist.

Fiat currencies enable fractional reserve banking

The problem with fiat currencies is that if there is deposit insurance then fractional reserve banking is possible. Fiat currencies require the absence of deposit insurance to work.

Banks have no need for deposit insurance

The government has no need to keep giving money to the banks... and should stop doing so.

Deposit insurance is a 'silly' idea in that the government seeks to subsidise the (already powerful) banking sector. It is silly and not arrogant because the banks themselves are in a powerful position which means that in a sense the truth claim is coming from below. Other truth claims such as taxation are bad news for the recipient and clearly come from above. Taxation is not a gift to the recipient unlike deposit insurance which is good for banks.

The outcome will be sound banking or state collapse

There is no need to subsidise the banking sector

Free market banking is possible

Anarchists are less offended by frb than libertarians

Anarchists (unlike libertarians*) have no significant complaint against socialised fractional-reserve banking. For them it is your own responsibility to make sure the bank returns your assets. If the banks has inflated the government currency that is only a concern for the government not the customer.

*A libertarian on the other hand would or might argue that individual rights extend beyond our immediate property and that either the government has a right to protect its copyright or that the individual has a right to be protected from inflation.

Libertarians are not in favour of frac res banking

Deposit insurance is unnecessary

Inflation is not possible without coercion

Frb is aggressive since it requires false value in the form of fiat currencies to be possible.

The group has no right to protect us from ourselves

Drug prohibition is a form of insanity... drugs exist and are real... for prohibition to be valid would require that the consumption of drugs affects third parties. Since this is not true there is no crime. It is also arrogant to think that the group has a right to protect individuals from their own actions. No such right exists.

First past the post is a problem for the left

First past the post is a problem for the left because it requires voters to support a single party without any choice.

Freedom is impossible without pr

The collectivist right cannot get freedom if they do not advocate pr because the collectivist left will always win under fptp. (Opposition to pr makes the right look stupid which is bad for freedom.) Under fptp the only way to get freedom is if the collectivist right advocate pr. We are stuck (with a lack of freedom) unless the right advocate pr.

Opposition to pr makes the right look stupid

Fptp means that the centre-left party is the natural party of government because the cr party is (anti-pr and therefore) inconsistent. It is inconsistent to be against pr and want freedom. Since the cr party is inconsistent people are unlikely to vote for them which means the cl party wins... even though it too is against pr. For the cl party to be against pr is not so illogical because pr leads to freedom. Since the cl party wins under fptp they have no incentive to change it and it will remain until the cr party wants to change but it never will. The cr party will never advocate pr and so fptp is stable.

Tories are unusual

Which of the two fptp parties is more likely to resign their position and advocate pr? If we label the centre-left party as 'Labour' (Democrats in America...) and the centre-right party as the 'Tory' (Republicans in America...) party then we argue as follows: We assume that both parties are aware and willing to accept that pr would destroy their particular party whilst it might not destroy their cause. If the cause of the left is socialism and the cause of the right is freedom then it is obvious to the left (but not the right) that pr would produce freedom. The right are unaware that pr would produce freedom because they do not realise that votes for the left might become libertarian votes. The left however do realise that votes for the Tories will never become votes for the left. If someone is willing to vote Tory (or Republican) they will never switch to the left under pr... but the reverse is different ... it might be the case that votes for the 'left' under fptp would go to liberal parties under pr and the left are aware of this so we cannot expect them to switch because they know the problem. The right are less aware of the likelihood of pr leading to freedom because freedom is not a problem for them. They are less threatened by votes for Labour under fptp than the other way around. Labour know pr would be bad for them but the Tories aren't really aware of how much freedom pr would bring.

Definition: Capitalism is the ability to refuse offers

Proportional representation is like quitting

Proportional representation is like a voluntary resignation by the government... unless it is forced on them by the electorate. It is like abdication by a monarch.

Proportional representation is good

Democracy is similar to freedom of speech. Democratic governments are ruled by elections and the more democratic the government the more it is exposed to differing points of view. Not wanting democracy (and pr) is like not wanting freedom of speech. There is no legitimate reason to stifle freedom of speech and representation. There is no reason not to want more democracy.

Libertarians must advocate pr if there is democracy

It is a mistake to think that fptp is good for freedom... consider the position of a person who wants less government. Their choice is either the centre-left (cl) or centre-right party. Given that they will reject the cl party their only option is to promote the cr party. Even if the cr party are entirely libertarian it still puts the voter in the position of having absolutely no choice... they are compelled to vote for a single party if they want to reject communism and they are only in this position because of the refusal of both parties to allow pr. To be given the choice of only one anti-communist party to vote for is not to be given a choice at all and so the cl party does well. It is idiotic to think that voters will continue to support a cr party which doesn't give them a chance to have full democracy.

It is inconsistent not to want fair votes

Conservatives are happy with the status quo

Conservatives are happy with the status quo even if fptp is communism.

Parties that support fptp do not want a small state

We have conflicting definitions of what it means to be left and right-wing and often differing interpretations of the aims of the established parties. Both small government and fptp are conventionally seen as right-wing... for some reason fptp is seen as a right-wing position. Perhaps the reason for this is that where it exists fptp is seen as conventional and therefore conservative or perhaps the reason is that those parties endorsing it are falsely seen by most people as wanting to reduce the state. However fptp produces big government so we must either alter and reject our definition of left and right-wing to mean small and large government respectively or think of the parties in a different way. We must realise the party which we previously assumed was for a small state is not at all. If left-wing is to continue to mean big government (which seems reasonable) then any party supporting fptp is in fact on the left not the right with the opposite being true for pr... parties which support pr must be seen as government-contracting right-wing parties. It is not merely a quixotic anomaly that right-wing parties support fptp but are otherwise for a small state the means by which the parties gain their power supersedes other policies. Support for either fptp or pr is stronger in determining if a party is for a small or large state than other policies. If a party does not favour pr when compared with fptp they are not for a small government and they are not right wing whatever else their policies might be. To be right wing is to favour pr over fptp. It is anomalous that a right wing (pr-supporting) party would also be for high taxes but that is of less significance than their stance on how the government should be elected. The primary concern in defining whether a party is for a smaller state or not is whether they support pr. If a party is not for pr they are not right-wing.

Definition: To be left wing is to be in favour of fptp

Proportional representation is similar to anarchy... and so then there is little point in organising elections such as this (where the electorate can fully express their views) as no laws will pass. Only fptp enables laws to pass. If pr is anarchy it is a waste of time to have pr elections. To advocate pr is to advocate anarchy.

Since we find more interest in pr on the conventional 'left' of politics we can say that freedom (pr and anarchy) is left-wing... it is the left not the right which is more interested in freedom by the conventional definition of left and right. To be right-wing is to be in favour of a big state since the right is more strongly opposed to pr... using the conventional (wrong) labels. In truth to keep fptp is not right-wing and certainly not liberal even tough it is conservative.

It is illogical to support fptp or be a communist

If we divide the world into libertarians and communists and then further into those who like fptp and those who prefer pr then we have four sections of humanity. It is my contention (and the contention of this blog*) that pr is more democratic and also more anarchistic since we are not obligated to vote for the established parties. Pr reduces the size of the government. Given that pr is more liberal we can say that only libertarians are being consistent in their support for pr... someone who is a communist is not being logical if they support pr because fptp gives them more power. But we know that communists are not logical anyway because slavery is immoral. Communists are only logical if they support fptp. Libertarians are illogical if they support fptp because that gives power to the communists. Only libertarians who support pr are logical... everyone else is illogical.

*The claim that pr reduces the size of government is not supported with evidence in this particular blogpost but many arguments have been given supporting this elsewhere on the blog.

Fptp is bad for the right

Whilst it may be good for a single centre-right party... fptp in general is bad for the right.

Centre-right parties can never win on their own

Centre-right parties can never win on their own they need to form a coalition.

Centre-left parties cannot be defeated under fptp

First past the post causes fair communism

Fptp means the centre-left (cl) party generally do well... but this is fair since the centre-right (cr) party has the opportunity to advocate pr to prevent this. Pr would prevent the dominance of the cl party which establishes itself under fptp. For the cl party fptp is not a threat at all to their progress in fact it is the aspect of the voting system they rely on to do well... without fptp the cl would lose and there would be no communism.

Representation can be given to multiple candidates

With fptp the least small group wins and takes all of the representation... this is a problem (and unnecessary) because there is no reason to give all the power to a single group it can be shared between individuals.

First past the post makes the assumption that it's fine to allocate all the power to the single party which places first in an election. It assumes that giving no power to the other minority candidates will work as a democratic system.

Banks are able to print money because of taxation

Fractional reserve banking assumes that forcing some people to pay tax who cannot print money is fine even when banks can print money. This means that banks are in effect exempt from taxation and part of the state and yet they are able to take private profits.

No good state would use fptp

If governments are always good then fptp would be impossible because no good government would assume power using this system. Use of fptp demonstrates the state is lacking compassion for its electorate.

Representative democracy is a false concept

Only the government can commit a crime

No one is insane

To defend fractional reserve banking is insane

It is criminal for a bank to be insolvent

There is no need for deposit insurance

First past the post is indirect democracy

First past the post is unconstitutional

It is possible that people will not want fiat money

People talk about inflation when what they really mean is the price of money... it is possible for the price of something to change even when the quantity remains the same. It is possible for the demand to alter. It is possible for the demand for fiat money to fall. Price is only synonymous with inflation if the demand for fiat money is constant... which it doesn't need to be.

The government is free to allow frb

The government is not obligated to protect people from fractional reserve banking.

First past the post is against the law

First past the post is a violation of human rights

Proportional rep. gives people more freedom

Tories reject pr because they are not anarchists

To reject pr is to reject democracy

It is inconsistent for a democratic party to reject pr... and all parties which stand for elected office must be democratic by definition otherwise they would not stand.

All political parties are democratic otherwise they would not stand for election and so it is hypocritical and inconsistent for any of them to reject pr. It is inconsistent for a political party which seeks elected office to be opposed to pr. Only pr is consistent with democracy and all parties seeking office are democratic... if they are not democratic they should not stand for election.

Pr gives people more ability to refuse the government

Democracy means we require the permission of the electorate before we are able to govern. It is inconsistent to support democracy and not pr since under democracy we seek to have a situation in which all votes are equal. Fptp is inconsistent with democracy. Failure to advocate pr means a rejection of democracy which means a failure to respect the electorate. Pr gives people more ability to refuse the government so it is inherently liberating.

Proportional representation is anarchy

Elections should be proportional

The government has a responsibility to make sure elections are proportional.

It is bad for the centre-right party to advocate fptp

It is bad for the centre-right party to advocate fptp because this makes them obnoxious and unelectable... which is bad for freedom. It is good for freedom if the centre-right party advocates pr.

Fiat currencies are the same as govt currencies

The state is being destroyed by deposit insurance

The state is being destroyed by fractional res banking

Frb is illegal if banks are insured by the government

If banks have deposit insurance it is illegal for them to practice fractional reserve banking.

It is illegal for banks to print money

It is illegal for anyone other than the government to print money and increase the money supply. Even banks are not allowed to print money... this is because the general public would not support a discrepancy such as this between the banks and normal people. For banks to be able to print money requires the consent of the general public which has not been given. The banks do not have permission from the general public to print money.