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

Each of these is similar to the position taken in the previous post...

i) Land ownership No one can own the land. This is a very simple position. However to live a functional life it may be pragmatic to arrange that land is allocated and compartmentalised so that the best use can be made of it. Whilst this appears to be very similar to property ownership of the typical type it is not quite the same. We do not own the land we lease it temporarily from the community within which we live... the group which we expect to stay off our claimed property.

ii) Taxation This position has been stable for a while. Taxation violates the non-aggression principle. That's not to say that some taxes aren't worse than others and if taxation is required then it is best to tax 'bad' things rather than 'good' things. Although taxation might seem like a good idea it is pretty clear from just a cursory examination of natural rights that it is not legitimate and history has shown us where it can lead. Just because we might like an idea (or hate its antithesis) doesn't mean that it is true.

iii) Drug prohibition It is not possible to do a crime to yourself because crimes are concerned with refraining from doing harm to others. Other people do not have a right to impose their version of a good and healthy life onto you.

Situations where the state is in the wrong and will fail

We have no obligation to protect the state from itself and we have no obligation to maintain or protect either of these two arrangements...

i) First past the post By precedent we have the first past the post voting system. Very few people honestly argue that it is a superior system... it is hard to argue against democracy whether we are defending the statist or anti-statist position. But to maintain first past the post requires that voters keep voting for the two main parties whether tactically or otherwise. But the public has no obligation to do so and can in effect 'default' on the fptp system by choosing to vote for parties which do not support fptp and instead endorse proportional representation. The voting public have no obligation to protect the fptp system.

ii) Deposit insurance The state has no right to protect the banks from failure. To do so is to place a particular kind of firm above others in terms of importance and there is never a reason to do so. If the banks get too large (and insolvent) the state will not be able to save them and to make the attempt will jeopardise the security of the state itself. Just as the individual has no obligation to save the banks they also have no obligation to save the state and if the state tries to save the banks it too will fail.

First past the post is a form of theft

In a democracy each voter has the right to an equal vote... there is no reason to give preference to any particular way of voting for this destroys the principles behind democracy. If some votes are worth more than others then our natural rights have been affected and this is similar to theft. If a government is formed using an unfair system then this government has no legitimacy and is a violation of natural rights. To use the first past the post voting system encourages tactical voting and it means that only voting for the major parties enables your vote to count significantly. This is not fair and in a democracy unfair votes are a violation of our natural rights because a government is formed using the process. To form a government unfairly is aggression and theft.

First past the post is criminal

The purpose of democracy is to make sure the government (if there is a government) is accountable to the people. A representative democracy enables people to choose who votes in parliament on their behalf. If there is direct democracy we vote directly on legislation as in the case of a referendum. But with the first-past-the-post system of representative democracy only the first candidate will sit in parliament and so we must vote tactically... if we seek to maximise the impact of our vote. In this way we are not being given full access to parliament because we having to compromise our political views in order to make sure our vote is not wasted. Only with proportional representation can we feel that we have been given every opportunity to have our views expressed. It is unlikely that our views will match precisely with either of the two dominant fptp parties and so only with pr are our views expressed. If we have not been given the full expression of our political views (where it would be possible... as with pr) then we have been disenfranchised and oppressed. First past the post is a form of political oppression and as such it is a crime. It is a crime to deny to the people the full expression of their political desires in government if it is possible to give them a voice. To use first past the post is a criminal act because it gives people less choice politically which is to stifle their political expression and their ability to make the government accountable.

Tories think they are liberals

Part of the reason that the state is so resistant to electoral reform (from fptp to pr) is that they consider themselves to be liberals. The people in government think of themselves as liberals who are protecting the world from socialism. If this is the case they will consider an expansion of democracy to be a threat to them and so a threat to liberalism. It is because the people in power think of themselves as liberals that they resist pr. If they do not think of themselves as liberals but instead socialists then it will be obvious to them that pr would reduce the size of the government... and they would be more likely to listen to this position. Politicians who think of themselves as liberals resist pr more strongly than the left because they assume the voting public are to their left (despite having given them a mandate under fptp).

The state will not change the voting system

No one apart from the voters can stop first-past-the-post... we can assume a reform of the voting system from fptp to pr will not be imposed on the people by the state. The reason we can assume this is that (if anything) pr will give the people more power so it is not in the interests of the state to make this reform... they would be acting against their interests. So it is only if the people themselves go on strike and refuse to vote for the fptp-endorsing parties that reform will (or can) happen. There will be no transition from fptp to pr unless the voters demand it at the ballot box in a general election... it will not come from the state. The state will not change the voting system only the people have the ability to change the voting system.

The state is invalid if it does not use pr

For a legislature to be accountable and to have a mandate from the people requires that it is democratic. Without democracy no government can claim to be legitimate and to have the consent of the governed. To be a government and to be legitimate requires democracy and elections. But if the elections are not proportional it is possible for people to make the (valid) claim that they have not been consulted and so they have not given their consent. To have valid and accountable government requires both democracy and also proportional democracy. First past the post is not enough to give a government (a legislature) legitimacy. To have legitimacy a government must use pr. If it does not use pr then a government has no mandate to rule and is invalid. To be valid a government must use pr. Only if it uses pr can a government be said to be valid.

Only dictatorship is worse than fptp

If we assume that without democracy there will be no government then perhaps there is a reason to reject pr. But if the only alternative to pr is to have first-past-the-post then pr is preferable and good. If government without democracy is impossible or not something that we have to fear (since it will not happen) then we have no reason to advocate democracy... because without democracy there would be no government which is good... so it is only as a consequence of the fear of tyranny that we would advocate democracy. If tyranny is impossible there is no need for democracy. Since tyranny is possible we have democracy and the more choice we have the better. It is because we have choice in how we are governed that democracy reduces the size of the state and so to have more democracy further reduces the size of the state and is good. It is because to have a big government is bad that democracy (and pr) is good. It is only good to have fptp (compared to pr) if we want big government. If the alternative to fptp is pr (and not anarchy) then fptp is bad. Fptp is good only compared with no democracy at all. Fptp is better only than tyranny... it is not better than pr. The only thing worse than fptp is unaccountable government... everything else (both pr and anarchy) are preferable. Only tyranny (government without democracy) is worse than fptp.

The state can be voluntary

To have a state does not necessarily require that it be accountable to the electorate... we can have a state and government without democracy. Democracy is not a requirement for government. But then we must answer the question of who should rule if there is no democracy and the answer is that volunteers should control the government. It is possible to have a voluntary state where the institutions of the state are run as charities by volunteers. There is no reason to have democracy... and the disadvantages of democracy are clear: With democracy it is possible to deprive other people of their rights only because we have chosen to do so. There is no need for democracy even if there is a need for the state. We can have a state without democracy.

First past the post is illegitimate

If we seek to form a government we have an obligation to make sure we have a mandate from the people we seek to govern. Usually this is achieved by democracy and arranging elections... but if those elections are not proportional we have not given the people the best chance to reject bad politicians. If we seek to form a government we have an obligation to make sure not only that there is democracy but also that there is proportional democracy. If we have not used a proportional voting system then the government has no legitimacy. Only if we use some form of pr can we make the claim that the government is legitimate. If we use fptp to form a government then that government has no legitimacy.

There is no reason to reject pr

It makes sense to arrange elections so that people can vote for the party of their choice without worrying about who other people are going to vote for. If we have proportional representation then there is no reason for voters to be concerned with how other people are going to vote and they can simply vote for their favourite candidate. This system is clearly much better for the voter because they have more chance of their desires being reflected in parliament if they do not need to concern themselves with tactical voting. It is only if we would want to frustrate the voter that we would prefer to use anything other than proportional representation. There is no valid reason to use fptp and since pr is clearly better and easier for the voter to use then (by default) it should be the system in place. Since there is no reason to reject pr we should have it. Only if we reject the concept of government and democracy to begin with might there be a reason to reject pr but since without government there can be no law and law is good then that position is not tenable. Since democracy and government is good (anarchy would lead to lawlessness) then there is no reason to reject pr. Only an anarchist might have a reason to reject pr but since anarchy is not a valid way to live then there is no legitimate reason to reject pr. And if someone is an anarchist then pr will be less oppressive to them... the state which uses pr is less oppressive to (the anarchist than) the state which uses fptp and so even an anarchist has no fair reason to reject pr other than dogma. The statist must accept the validity of pr since they already accept that a government (and democracy) should exist. If the statist defends government and democracy then they are being inconsistent if they reject pr. Only the anarchist can reject pr but anarchy is not a valid proposition. Statists must accept pr and to not be a statist is to be in favour of anarchy and lawlessness which is not a valid position. Democrats have no reason to reject pr.

First past the post is popular representation

Democracy is inherently proportional... each vote counts equally. Which is why it is inconsistent and disturbing when the entirety of the power is given to the sole winning candidate. This type of winner-takes-all electoral process (also called first-past-the-post) is not a true kind of democracy because all of the power is given to just a single candidate despite how people have voted. To have true democracy we must have proportional elections. Proportional representation is properly named democratic representation and first-past-the-post is more accurately named popular representation. Democratic representation is better than popular representation because we do not want to give all of the power to the single sinning candidate... to do so would be to risk giving undue power to someone who does not truly represent the people.