Government is inevitable

If a choice offers to us a tolerable option then it will not be too offensive to us to make the choice. (There is nothing wrong with a choice if we are able to take one of the options happily...) As in the two-party fptp voting system if we are able to tolerate supporting one of the main parties then fptp will not seem too oppressive to us. If both of the options available (both Conservative and Labour) are unpalatable then fptp will immediately be a problem for us... assuming we also do not want to waste our vote.

If people who want to participate in the democratic process are offended by both Labour and the Conservative party then fptp will be a problem for them. If we assume that the democratic process is inherently liberating then to oppress the voters in this way is oppressive in general. It is oppressive to impose fptp on the voters if there is not a perfect option available (of the two parties) to the voters. If both of the parties is imperfect then more choice will only improve the government and provide more freedom. If neither party is perfect (or even tolerable) then pr will provide more freedom. If one of the parties is electable (tolerable) then fptp presents no problem (apart from it being a kind of dictatorship... which is a problem) but if both are terrible than fptp is bad and pr will provide more freedom.

Fptp is fine unless not one of the two parties is electable. If they are both not worth voting for then pr is preferable. If they are both bad then we need and can only be free with pr. We can't be free with fptp if neither one of the main parties offers freedom (and both of them are socialist). If both of the main parties are socialist (not one of them is liberal) then fptp is a problem.

Fptp-adherents must be content with (and not hate) the lack of democracy and choice provided by the system. It is strange not to want democracy... given that the alternative to accountable government is either anarchy or an oppressive dictatorship.

There is no excluded middle... we cannot have the absence of democracy and still have peace because this will lead to tyranny. If there is no accountability (in government) there is no peace. Nothing but democracy will work (and provide peace) and so it is natural and logical to prefer pr. Only anarchists (apart from tyrants) would object to pr and anarchy cannot provide peace for which we require a government and property rights. We cannot have property rights (and peace) without government and so pr is the best choice. Pr is good because anarchy is (impossible and) bad. Only anarchists (who are not tyrants) have a preference for fptp over pr but anarchy will never provide peace and so pr is the natural choice if we do not want a dictatorship. Pr puts the power in the hands of the (liberal) people and not the socialist government.

Compared to the government without democracy the people (the voters) can be considered to be liberals. Democracy is a liberal (not socialist) concept. Only socialists hate democracy. Neither of the two main fptp parties offer statelessness... no political party can be an anarchist party... the government is not the absence of government.

The government is real.