Incomplete summary of rhetorical positions (update)

This is an update of a prior post in which I laid out the current status of my rhetorical positions. This type of blog helps me to understand what if anything remains to be done to have a consistent political outlook.

Nihilistic positions

i) Land ownership This is pretty clear and has been my position for some time. To make a claim of land ownership is purely subjective and can always be questioned. This means that to 'own' land we must always be cognisant of the claims of other people around us. We live with other people and if our land claims are sufficiently extensive that they hurt others then we have a problem which can be remedied. Land claims need to be made in reference to the claims and needs of the rest of the population.

ii) Taxation Generally I am a sceptic with regard to the benefits of public spending. It is extremely difficult to do something useful without price signals. Of course charity is perfectly possible and beneficial but government spending is not charity.

iii) Drug prohibition This is a violation of natural rights because to be locked up we must have committed a crime but we cannot do a crime to ourselves by definition. Crimes are behaviours and actions which hurt other people. The important point here being other people not ourselves. We cannot do a crime to ourselves and so drug prohibition is illegal and unnecessary.

Non-nihilistic positions

i) Proportional representation We need to have a government otherwise we can have no property rights and the only valid way to have a government is by democracy. What this means is that for civilisation to exist we must have democracy so the only remaining question is which type of democracy is best. With first past the post voters are almost always reduced to making a choice between only two parties... the others are not worth voting for because they cannot win. This reduces the choice available to voters in (deciding) which politicians they want to retain which means they are forced to give their approval to someone they don't entirely like. If there is enough choice we can say that voters will more-or-less get entirely what they want. (Despite the fact other people might want something else.) With democracy we are able to protect ourselves from the predations of others (to oppose crime) and also the predations of the state (socialism). If we do not have enough democracy as with fptp this means that these two predators (conventional criminals and state socialists) are able to exploit this lack of democracy to their advantage. If we have full democracy this is bad for criminals (both state and private) because democracy is the mechanism by which property rights are set by the community. If property rights cannot be accurately determined (with full democracy) then predators will exploit the ambiguities which are not dealt with. Pr is a more accurate form of democracy and since democracy is the source of civilisation pr is more civilised. Anyone who opposes pr and democracy is a threat to property rights and hence a criminal of a kind.