First past the post is worse than pr

Democracy is the means by which the people hold the state to account. If the state is objectively good then there would be no requirement for democracy because everything the state does would be good and it would be infallible. If the state is good then there is no need for democracy and there would be no argument in favour of proportional representation because the people should have no authority over the state. Arguments for democracy and proportional representation rely on the assumption that the state (is bad and) should be accountable to the people. If the state is bad then it is best to have the greatest possible amount of democracy which is proportional representation (pr). If the state is bad and anarchy is true then pr is preferable to fptp (because it is more democratic). If the state is not bad then there is no problem with fptp just as there would be no problem with a state without democracy at all. The requirement for democracy proves that the state is bad (otherwise there would be no reason for it) and so then there should be no state at all. States held accountable by pr tend to be smaller and less oppressive to the people than those which exploit fptp and so then pr is better than fptp and no state is best of all.

First-past-the-post is worse than pr which is worse than anarchy.