Democracy is always bad for the state because it the means by which the people are able to hold the state accountable. And so if we want the state to be accountable and not totalitarian we would prefer to have more democracy. Since pr is more democracy than fptp we would want to replace fptp with pr if we want the state to be held accountable. If we like the state (more than the electorate) and do not want it to be held accountable then it would make sense to oppose the introduction of pr. Fptp is good if we both like the state and recognise that democracy is bad for the state. If one of these statements is not true (or one of their negations is true*) then we would find pr preferable... if either the state is bad or if we think democracy is helpful (not harmful) to the state then it makes sense to prefer pr. People who support the state but not pr recognise that democracy is not helpful to the state. Someone who recognises that democracy is not helpful to the state will welcome fptp if they are pro-state. If the state is bad then either democracy is helpful to the state or pr (which is more democratic) is preferable to fptp. Democracy doesn't help the state and so pr is good unless the state is good. The state is bad and democracy is bad for the state so pr is good... if either of the first two claims are false then pr is not good. To not like pr is to either think democracy is not bad for the state or to like the state. It is logical for statists to not like democracy (and pr) but no one else. Pr is bad for the state unless democracy is not bad for the state and so pr is good since that which is bad for the state is good. People who support fptp either deny that democracy is bad for the state or they support the state. Anti-statists who support fptp must think that the state likes democracy. The state is not democracy and so it is illogical for an anti-statist to prefer fptp.
*If the state is bad or if democracy is helpful to the state then pr is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment