Crimes can also be insane as well as arrogant

Not all crimes are concerning arrogance... sometimes it is a crime to deny a truth such as the property rights of others. Crimes can be arrogant when we falsely assume property to be our own when it is not... Crimes can also be insane (as in the case of fptp) where proponents deny that votes for minority parties should be given equal weight.

Democracy is peace and so more of it is a good thing

We have democracy to make the world a better place and to have peace. Peace is synonymous with making the world a better place. War is bad. Because enabling people to choose their government is a good thing (and peaceful) then we would want to extend this principle as far as possible.

Democracy is the opposite of government

It is commonly supposed that first past the post prevents big government but this is false. Fptp does not prevent big government... just because people are scared of Labour doesn't mean they will vote for the Tories. If anti-Labour votes are certain to go to the Tories then fptp would be fine. It is because not all anti-Labour voters vote for the Tories that there is a problem with fptp...

We can assume most people do not want big government... otherwise there would be no point in having a democracy in the first place. So government is undemocratic. If there is not enough democracy there will be big government.

We can think of even an anarchist society as being 'democratic' in some way because people are left alone. If anarchy is the full expression of democracy then democracy is always a good thing.

Proportional rep. would make it easier for the right

First past the post is good news for Labour (the generic party of the centre-left) because it means they must only defeat the Tories. Pr would mean Labour would need to defeat not just the Tories but all other parties of the right... which would be much more difficult. Beating the Conservative party is relatively easy for Labour to achieve under first past the post. Pr would make it more difficult for Labour and easier for the right.

Only anarchists oppose proportional representation

No form of government is better than democracy

People who advocate fptp forget that we can leave

Anarchists prefer pr (if there is a government)

First past the post is not a very good voting system for anarchists. People who want to reduce the size of the state would want to give voters the maximum possible opportunity to do so. With fptp choice is restricted so that one of the big parties of government will always get in.

Liberal representation is a better name than pr

Liberal representation more accurately describes what is now called proportional representation. It is a liberal phenomenon for voters to have the greatest opportunity to express themselves. Democracy is liberal if there is a government and so the best expression of democracy can rightly be called liberal representation. Democracy is liberal and so when voters get the best opportunity to express themselves this is liberal representation.

Only Labour can break the two-party system

Unlike the party of the right, Labour could break the two-party system. It is not possible for the Tories to introduce pr because they have no interest in doing so. The two-party fptp system gives strength to the Tories who would otherwise do very badly. It is only Labour who have the incentive and therefore the ability to break the two-party system.

Only the party of the left can fix first past the post

The generic party of the centre-left under fptp (the Labour party in the UK) have a responsibility to prevent fptp and to introduce pr. The reason for this is that fptp is known to be unfair and to result in tactical voting which undermines democracy and the government. It is the responsibility of the party of the left and not the right to solve these issues because the party of the right is not interested in democracy and government. It is not offensive to the party of the right if the government has a bad reputation. This is why only the party of the left will be able to fix it. It will not get fixed otherwise.

It makes no sense for the Tory party to support fptp

First past the post is certainly bad for the smaller parties but it doesn't even make sense for the Tory party (the generic party of the centre-right) to support it. We can assume the Tory party do not like their opposite... the Labour party... if they did then they are not Tories. So given that Tories are in opposition to the Labour party then it would make sense for them to oppose fptp which gives the Labour party an advantage.

First past the post is bad for voters

First past the post is the voting system which is best for politicians. It means they only have to get selected by their political party (one of the big two) to have a very strong chance of getting elected. With pr voters are able to reject politicians instead of the whips. If something is good for politicians it is bad (for freedom). If something is good for government (and politicians) then it is bad for the people... which are not the government. If something is bad for the voters in a democracy then it is bad. In a democracy the voters are the opposite of the government. Fptp is bad for voters so it is good for the government.

First past the post is a form of communism

Any party which supports fptp is a communist party because fptp eventually leads to the emergence of two dominant parties which cannot be removed. A party (or two parties) which cannot be removed will eventually become a communist party.

Proportional representation is safer than fptp

When we have democracy we are able to elect politicians into power. They can then make laws which will either punish or liberate people and actions. The problem with fptp is that given we must choose between only two parties we can punish either one or the other half of society. With pr we are able to punish either all of society (communism) or none of it (liberalism) and anything in between. If we are angry and want punish someone (if we are being persecuted) and the liberal party (under fptp) will fail to carry out that punishment it is likely we will vote for the other side. Democracy enables people to punish and be punished... it will be worse if people are only able to punish others by choosing communism. Since democracy enables people to be punished then it is in our interests to enable people to punish others in the most refined and least dangerous manner possible which is pr. Fptp is too crude and dangerous a form of democracy.

Without fptp there would be no Labour party

No party can claim to be for small government if it endorses fptp. Even if the party of the centre-right is for small government in all of its other policies it is still promoting big government if it supports fptp. This is because fptp 'forces' the voter to choose between only two political parties. Even if one of those parties is for small government reducing the choice like this is a problem. Assuming the voter wants small government introducing pr will make no difference because that choice will remain. If the voter wants (requires) some government at all then restricting choice will encourage them to shift to the party of big government. If the voter is not an anarchist then more choice is better. This way they can get the government they want without sanctioning more of it. Pr enables voters to be selective about the extent of government they want. It is not good to force people to choose between no government and huge government.

Proportional rep. is less democratic than fptp

Democracy is terrible... which is why pr is favourable

Tories don't seem to realise we have a democracy

Pr is good for libertarians if there is a government

If democracy is libertarian (assuming there is a government... if there is not then there is no point talking about it) then we would want more of it and to introduce pr (if we are libertarians). If democracy is not libertarian then we (libertarians) would want fptp.

Fptp is a collectivist voting system

Fptp is a collectivist voting system because it 'forces' people to vote tactically. Voting tactically means voting for one of the big established parties... which means you are voting for the same party as other people when you would not otherwise do so. This is a forced kind of collectivism.

Fptp is harmful because pr is benign

People who advocate fptp should stop doing so... to advocate fptp is to advocate government. Fptp is not defensive... it is not reacting to the threat of pr. Pr is fine and so to protect fptp is to do harm. We do harm when we reject something benign which people want. If there is nothing wrong with pr then it should be introduced and to reject it is harmful.

Labour support the Tories if they (Labour) reject pr

We can say that Labour (the centre-left party... the Democrats in America) in fact support the opposition party (the Tories) if they do not reject fptp. The party of the left is supporting the party of the right if they do not advocate pr.

Anarchy is safety government is dangerous

Fptp is dangerous because it leads to socialism

People who reject pr and are in favour of fptp fail to realise the dangers of democracy and socialism. Voters are not willing to be democratically coerced (if you don't vote for us something worse will happen) into voting for the centre-right party and so the dangerous centre-left party will prevail under fptp. Fptp is more socialist and therefore more dangerous.

Pr is less dangerous than fptp

If people are not Tories then pr is preferable to fptp. Fptp is dangerous if people are not Tories because it will result in socialism (which is dangerous). Both forms of democracy are dangerous... the question is which is the less dangerous. Pr is less dangerous because people are not Tories.

Labour will get in under fptp unless people are Tories

First past the post is a win for Labour (or the conventional centre-left party) unless voters choose the alternative. If people are not prepared to vote for the alternative to Labour then Labour will get in under fptp... this is not the case with pr. Unless people are Tories Labour will get in under fptp.

The fptp parties are as bad as each other

The state will last longer if there is pr

One of the advantages of proportional representation over fptp is that as time progresses and the state becomes less significant, pr offers a 'soft landing'. Pr is between fptp (a high level of government) and complete anarchy. Pr may in fact lengthen the time during which the state still exists because it will be less oppressive than fptp. Fptp hastens the demise of the state. Pr would make the state more enduring.

Democracy is vulnerable to first past the post

Only the left can fix first past the post

The right will never 'fix' fptp because they generally do not see a problem with it. They are not even in favour of democracy to begin with (they prefer free markets) so they are not interested in tinkering around with the system. The problem, however, with relying on the left to fix it is that the left do well out of it. Pr would be freedom which the left do not want... they do not want to be truly exposed to democracy at present they enjoy their status as the default party of government.

Even though pr is freedom the right will not tolerate it (they will not propose reforms in favour of it) because their 'conservative' position is unfalsifiable. Democracy itself is an abstract concept so it is impossible to falsify a position (or counter-position) which rests on democracy. It is a question of taste since neither can be objective.

And so we have an impasse.

Tory support for first past the post is illogical

Tories have no obligation to support fptp

Tory support for fptp shows they support Labour

Proportional representation is like direct democracy in that is enables voters to have their views accurately represented. Pr reduces the tyranny of the state because it gives people more choice and choice is virtue. The state arises through lack of choice. Since pr improves choice then its antithesis fptp reduces choice and so enlarges the size of the government. Parties of the left or the right which support fptp are supporting the government. Pr is permanent freedom for the voter. The only reason for either fptp party (of the left or the right) to support fptp would be to prevent freedom. It is helpful to the party of the left that the party of the right rejects pr. Fptp ensures that the centre-left party will at some point get into power and have the ability to implement their agenda. It is for this reason and no other that the party of the centre-right endorses fptp. If the party of the centre-right does not support the party of the centre-left it would reject fptp.

Democracy is not a virtue

First past the post doesn't prevent democracy by definition. If there is democracy it might as well be proportional.

Democracy might as well be proportional

If democracy is good then fptp is bad... but some might argue that democracy is not good and so then fptp is justified. But this is a false argument. Fptp (whilst not being fully democratic) is still a form of democratic government. If you are against proportional representation on the grounds that it is democratic then you would be obliged to reject fptp for the same reasons. If pr is bad then fptp is bad as well.

People (who support government) who hate pr must support fptp otherwise they are against democracy altogether... in which case they are anarchists. There is no reason for an anarchist to oppose pr if the alternative is fptp. Only people who like fptp for reasons other than it being anti-democratic have a reason to dislike pr but there are no such reasons. If we assert that the alternative to pr is fptp (and not anarchy) then there is no reason to reject pr. If there is an alternative to democracy then fptp could be justified. Fptp is not justified since there is no alternative to democracy... or even if there is the point is redundant since we are arguing within the confines of an assumed democracy.

The voters are not the government so fptp is bad

The people are not the government so fptp is bad

First past the post is only good for government. Fptp reduces the choice available to voters who do not want to waste their vote which means that fptp is good for government and not the people. Only if government is the same as the people would fptp (even theoretically) be preferable. Since the people can never be the government then fptp is bad.

Proportional representation is equal representation

We should have pr unless there is a problem with it

The burden rests with those opposed to proportional representation and fair votes to show why it would be a problem. We have democracy now so it is not an argument about anarchy versus democracy... to get rid of fptp is only to replace it with pr which is fine. If pr is not fine then proponents of fptp need to show what their objections are to it. If there are no objections to pr then we should have it.

We should have pr unless there is something wrong with it.

Parliament is good but it is destroyed by fptp

Parliament is worthless if it is not proportional

It is not good to be governed by a single person... which is why we have parliaments... but they are redundant if we do not resolve the problem of first past the post. Without pr it is useless to have many seats and many parliamentarians which we assume was the original intent of parliament.

Parliament alone doesn't solve the problem of fptp

The problem with any fptp voting system is that government by a single person is not necessary. If we govern ourselves in a democracy then we can have direct democracy which gives everyone an equal vote. Fptp-style elections give us the most government because they concentrate the power in the hands of one person. A way to mitigate this is to have a parliament of politicians which are sourced from constituencies. We would hope that this would reduce the problems of having only one leader. But if we are not careful to make sure the constituencies promote their politicians in a proportional way the problems of fptp re-emerge. In any voting system political parties will emerge to make it easier for people of a similar outlook to get elected. This is fine but we must recognise that each party must have a leader and this is where the problem comes from. Because each party has a leader we will get the same problem from a fptp voting system with multiple politicians as we would from an ordinary mayoral-type system.

Mayor-type systems are those which are a straight run-off between two people for a single position.

If there is only one winner in each seat then each seat will reduce into a two-party election which will be mirrored across all the seats. Having plenty of parliamentarians doesn't solve the mayoral problem of fptp. Fptp in each seat makes it fptp for the presidency.

First past the post prevents choice

The problem with fptp is that the centre-left party has no incentive to change it and the centre-right party often do not realise how it creates problems. If the centre-right party see themselves as being in favour of a small state then (since they can be elected under fptp) they do not see a problem with the system. And, after all, they benefit from it... it is hard to see a problem with something you personally benefit from.

Libertarians like to be given a choice... that its their central philosophy that nothing is forced onto people and they can refuse all offers. But with fptp if we assume the centre-right party are something like libertarians we see that voters do not have a choice. To vote for a small-government party they have only one option which is antithetical to their principles. To get choice in government and the marketplace voters are given no choice. This 'problem' is caused by fptp.

First past the post is for people who love the state

A wasted vote is no excuse for supporting fptp

Part of the reason fptp is enduring is that voters seem to like not being given a choice. They will still vote for the 'main' parties despite neither of them offering voters a proportional voting system. Perhaps people don't realise that with more choice comes more freedom. If they are aware of this then fptp pertains only because people want big government and less choice. (Fptp protects voters from being free.) If we have fptp then either people hate freedom or falsely think fptp gives them freedom.

First past the post is not symmetrical

People will never know that banks can print money

If people know that banks can print money then that form of money ceases to be valued and ceases to be money. If people know that banks can print money then they cannot print money. Only if people do not know what is going on can banks print money. If banks can print money then people do not know about it.

People are unaware that banks can print money

We can assume that people would not value a currency which can be printed at will by private banks. So then since money is valued in spite of this fact we are able to deduce that people are ignorant of how banking and money works. If people know that banks print a particular form of money then that money would not be valued. People only value money which cannot be printed by banks. If people know about the banking system they will cease to value money. People don't know banks can print money otherwise the money would not be valued.

We do not have fractional reserve banking

It is commonly assumed that at the present time most countries are living under a system of fractional reserve banking but in truth we do not. To have fractional reserve banking requires that banks can fail. If banks are guaranteed by the state (or the authority which issues the base notes) then there is no such thing as fractional reserve banking. To have limited reserves means that the bank might not be able to meet all demands for the return of deposits as they fall due but that is not the case if the bank is guaranteed... it can always meet all demands.

First past the post suits the left and not the right

Politics is not symmetrical which means that fptp is unhelpful. Because people on the perceived left are more collectivist it is less of a problem for them to be disciplined voters. The left do not so much object to voting for the main party as do those on the right. The motivation for people who want a small state to vote for the mainstream centre-right party is that failure to do so results in something worse. They do not generally identify with the party. However, in contrast those on the left are happy to vote for (and support) their party because doing so is not inconsistent with their beliefs. Fptp is good for the left because party loyalty is more of a contradiction for the right than the left. The fractured nature of the liberal vote means that fptp favours the left.

Fptp is fine if one of the main parties is perfect

It is not in dispute that first past the post makes it easier for a single party to gain an overall majority. The pertinent question is whether this fact alone is good or bad. Perhaps one (or even both) of the main parties is perfect... in which case fptp is fine.

Property rights are given to us by other people

Property rights are given to us by other people and are perfectly possible without first past the post. Fptp is not required to have property rights.

Fptp is unnecessary to protect property rights

We don't need the government to uphold and enforce property rights... property rights emerge spontaneously. Since bad things do not happen without government there is no reason to keep fptp. The justification to keep fptp is that without strong government we would not have effective property rights but this is false. Property rights which need to be imposed by government are false.

Why parties form: to concentrate the vote

The reason why political parties form is to make sure supporters of their cause are concentrated behind one candidate. No one will get elected if multiple candidates all espousing the same ideology stand for election.

Fptp is like government because one person wins

First past the post requires that only one person can win which means it is a form of government. With government there can only be one person in charge. If more than one person is in charge then no one is in charge.

With proportional representation many people can win making it much more like anarchy. With pr there are no leaders despite the formation of a coalition. The coalition has no real democratic power.

Deposits are a myth and so deposit insurance is absurd

Bank deposits are a myth so there is no need for deposit insurance. When deposits are placed with a bank this arrangement is based on false assumptions. The bank in fact owns the money once it has been handed over... not the customer so the concept of deposit insurance is false. The government should compensate people only when something of genuine value has been lost but bank deposits are not a real piece of property. Bank deposits are not real so deposit insurance is a false concept... there is nothing to insure.

Incomplete summary of rhetorical positions

Apart from geolibertarianism (a lack of coercion and special attention paid to land ownership) there are other issues which appear in politics. Here is a summary of my position on those issues:

First past the post: Whilst annoying there is nothing strictly wrong with this system. The government have no obligation to make things fair.
Fractional reserve banking: Provided this happens in a free market then nothing is wrong.
Deposit insurance: This is bad and should not happen.
Drug prohibition: This should not happen... people are free to do whatever they like with their own body. The same applies to prostitution.
Debt: This is an invalid concept. No court should enforce debt contracts. If someone wants to promise something to someone else they are free to do so but no crime is committed if they fail to carry out that obligation. Crimes are only aggressive. Failure to pay back a debt is not aggressive. Neither is the enforcement of debts beneficial for the society as a whole.

Frb is fine deposit insurance is the problem

Deposit insurance destroys the value of money

Fractional reserve banking is either theft or printing

Banks do not own their customer's deposits if they did their role would not be a bank. By definition the assets placed with the bank are still owned by the person making the deposit... the contrary is absurd it would be like the customer making a donation to the bank. The word bank implies ownership is still retained by the person making the deposit and they are using the bank as a safe.

Given that banks do not own the money placed in the customer's accounts then any form of fractional (negative) reserve banking in a free market is theft. If there is no deposit insurance then to spend money which has been placed in the bank is theft.

If there is deposit insurance then if the bank makes loans with the deposits then money is being printed by the bank.

Fractional (negative) reserve banking is either theft or counterfeiting depending on whether the bank is guaranteed by the government.

First past the post is innocent

First past the post is disrespectful to voters but there is no crime in that... so fptp is innocent.

Fptp results in a monopoly for the centre-right party

Fptp results in the emergence of two dominant parties which means that the centre-right party under fptp will have a monopoly on limited government. Since monopolies are bad fptp is bad for liberals. Fptp results in a monopoly for the centre-right party which is bad.

Fptp is vulnerable to communism

Fptp is only better than pr at stopping communism if it can prevent a majority of voters getting what they want. Communism results under pr if more than half of the electorate vote for it... but fptp would be no better obstacle since if this can be achieved under pr then it will equally be achieved under fptp. In fact it is easier to achieve under fptp because absolute power is possible with very much less than a majority of the vote. Pr is power-sharing fptp gives power to the least small party. Fptp is no more effective at preventing communism than pr and it can be shown that it is significantly worse.

The government is never more liberal than the people

It is impossible for the government to impose liberalism on the population... assuming we are in a democracy. If the people do not want liberalism they will not vote for it. It is only possible for the government to impose tyranny on the people which they do not want by means of the electoral system being unfair. Tyranny by definition is a lack of choice and so it can never come from too much democracy. If liberalism is possible under fptp then it is equally possible under pr because for it to exist under fptp means a sufficient number of people are prepared to vote for the liberal party and they cannot be defeated by the alternative. If the electorate is willing to behave in this way under fptp then pr would be no threat to freedom. And if they do not vote for liberals under fptp then there is a chance pr could offer them the alternative they need to reject tyranny. Fptp is never good and sometimes bad... for it to be good would mean that the government is more liberal than the people which is impossible. The government is never more liberal than the people and so pr is preferable.

Fptp is a crime unless voters are irrelevant

Frb is a crime unless deposit insurance is irrelevant

The opposite of direct democracy is fptp

Fptp elections are dishonourable

Deposit insurance protects only bad banks

If banks have been printing money then removing deposit insurance will make them crash. If they have been doing nothing wrong then the removal of deposit insurance will make no difference to them. There is no reason not to remove deposit insurance because it only protects bad banks.

Banks are printing money if deposit insurance matters

Banks are printing money if the presence of deposit insurance means that they do not fail and without deposit insurance they would fail. We cannot know that deposit insurance prevents their failure (it might be for some other reason) but we can speculate that it does. If it does prevent their failure then banks are printing money.

Definition: Banks print money if deposit insurance prevents their failure.

We cannot know that banks print money (in this sense) but we can speculate that they do. And we can find out if banks have been printing money by removing deposit insurance.

Tactical support is undeserved

With proportional representation every vote is earned and deserved.

With fptp there is a chance you would be getting support not because of your own policies but because your party is the only party that has a chance to beat someone worse. With pr we know you deserved your power.

Fptp is a dictatorship of two parties

Deposit insurance dilutes the money supply

Money isn't real which means frb is benign

Money is worthless credit which means that if banks print money they are printing nothing of value. Printing money hurts no one it only serves to demonstrate the worthlessness of all money. Money is worthless and so fractional reserve banking is benign.

Negative reserve banking is a better description

A better description for fractional reserve banking would be negative reserve banking... the reason for this is that it is not the fractional (or otherwise) nature of the practice which is particular. It is not very interesting to know whether the ratio of reserves is a fraction or not. What is pertinent is whether the bank has sufficient reserves to meet all demands as they fall due. If the bank is capable of this then it has positive reserves if not then it has negative reserves.

In the future there will be no money

Definition: Money is worthless credit

Printing money is when worthless credit has value