If we need a state then fptp is aggressive

The nature of democracy is that the people are trusted to govern themselves. And so the government will be a reflection of the people… if they are good the government will be good and if they are bad the government will be bad. But since all species are inclined to protect themselves and by definition (relative to ourselves) this is good then we can say that people as a whole are good and that democracies are good. There is no argument against democracy because by definition what the people want is good for them… we cannot question a free choice (since there is no objective virtue). So then democracies are good merely because we cannot know for certain what is best for the people we can only let them (be free to) choose. We do not know better than the people what is good for them. Democracy is objectively good because it enables the people to choose their own leaders (whether or not the people are themselves good… whatever they want is good). There is never a justification to remove choice from people… even ourselves. To give people the most possible choice is a form of morality and so then democracy is moral and first-past-the-post (fptp) is immoral because it is less democratic than proportional representation. We can think of fptp as a form of contextual aggression because we have a requirement for a state (to have property rights) and so then given that we need a state fptp reduces choice and freedom unnecessarily… which is aggression. Fptp is contextually aggressive. We need a state and so then first-past-the-post is aggressive since it reduces the control over the state given to the voter. Proportional representation gives more control to the voter and so then to use anything else is a form of (contextual) aggression. If we need a state then fptp is aggressive.