Not all leftism is criminal some is merely threatening

For the purposes of this blogpost the words statism and leftism (left-wing) can be used interchangeably...

How do we know that something or some philosophy is left-wing? We know that all forms of leftism include within them some kind of collectivism but the important aspect which means that something is left-wing is that it involves the state. And further, because it involves the state it will involve physical force in some way, either actual or merely threatened. A great many defenders of the state will point to the fact that very few people are actually ever arrested or incarcerated for non-payment of taxes or similar. So they deduce not all of the state activities are a result of the use of physical force.

But we can say that everything the state does derives from either actual use of force or merely the threat of force. People who recognise that the freedom of speech is absolute will, perhaps with some regret, recognise that if actual force is not used then we only have spoken threats which are not physically aggressive. As distressing as those (threats of violence) are they are not actually physically aggressive and yet they support the state and leftism. So not all leftism is aggressive (physically) and yet it all involves force in some way, even if merely the threat of force. So if force is involved it is leftist (and statist), but not all leftism is aggressive, some is merely threatening.

Because crimes must be more than the spoken word (due to the freedom of speech) then not all leftism and statism is criminal, some is merely threatening, but all statism involves force, even if merely the threat of force.

Some statists, in their defence, do not actually use physical force they merely use threats of force and intimidation and for this reason we can say that not all leftism is aggressive, but all involves force, even if only threatened.

The political right is a subset of the left

We are familiar with the definition of left-wing to mean someone who advocates for a large state, usually with the provision of state services such as healthcare and education. The opposite of this, we are often given to assume is something called 'right-wing' but there is no such opposite of left-wing. The natural opposite of left-wing is liberal anarchy so then to be right-wing is nothing more than to be a kind of left-wing. The political right is a subset of the left, there is no part of the political right which is outside and apart from the left... all on the right are part of the left.

First past the post is left wing

A statement of Duverger's law is as follows: "Single-member-district electoral systems that require only a plurality to win election tend to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional-representation systems tend to produce multiparty systems..."

Given that this is true it might be possible to further speculate about the nature of those two parties and which kind of party is favoured by first-past-the-post.

If we accept that first-past-the-post results in a two-party system then (to use the established vernacular) one of these parties will likely be of the 'left' and the other will be of the 'right', with right-wing meaning that the particular party favours the market over the state. The left-wing party is more in favour of the state than the right-wing party. But if we examine the attitudes and behaviours of the voters it is likely (at least to my eyes) that a right-wing voter will find more to object to with this system because they are by nature more critical of the government. A left-wing voter is more tolerant of policies which they do not agree with being held by their party of choice because they understand that for the state to be large people must make compromises. I am not making a value judgement here about which attitude is favourable, I am merely making the case that left and right-wing voters are not symmetrical in their attitudes to government and their chosen political party.

Right-wing voters are much more likely to object to being 'forced' (expected?) to vote for a monopolistic right-wing party (as a consequence of Duverger's law) than the left because they by nature approve of choice in the market and presumably in the ballot box. It is more consistent for the left to tolerate something they might not choose for the greater benefit of the group and the state. So first-past-the-post is less offensive to the left because the compromises arising from a lack of realistic choice are less onerous given that they will generally be willing to make compromises for the state, and so they will be more loyal to the established party of the left.

People on the right will be less likely to remain loyal to the established party of the right because they are already predisposed to be oppositional with regard to the government. This is why first-past-the-post not only favours a two-party system but it further favours the party of the left.

There is no reason to support first past the post

There is no reason to assume that people do not know their own interests, in particular in reference to the state. To assume that the state always knows what is in the interests of the people even above their own stated opinions makes no sense because there is no evidence to support this. And if we have no evidence that democracy is bad then it makes sense to support it wherever possible.

Democracy is preferable to its absence and if someone seeks to suppress democracy then the burden of proof rests with them to show that the state knows best. And if the state knows what is good for one person then it knows what is good for all people. This makes no sense because ultimately this kind of state will reduce to all of the power being held by one person. There is no evidence to show that one person knows what is best for all people, and we would not be able to know how to choose the solitary leader.

In the end the burden of proof for the suppression of democracy rests with the person who doesn't like it because democracy gives people more choice where it would otherwise be absent and we presume in favour of choice, because there is no reason not to. There is no reason to reject choice and so we presume in favour of (more) democracy.

The state is insane to deny (the truth of) democracy

The people are more powerful than the state which is why the state is never justified in suppressing democracy. It makes no sense for the state to advocate first-past-the-post or any other non-optimal system of democracy because the purpose of the state is to serve the people (not the other way around).

The people are not only more powerful than the state they are also more important which means the people should be given the most direct voting system possible. The state is in denial of reality if it thinks that the suppression of democracy is a good idea. Democracy is a natural right if there is a state and not to recognise this is to deny reality.

First past the post is theft

What is and isn't theft is defined, at least in part, by the government. The criticism made by proponents of democracy (in contrast to fptp) is not that fptp enables the formation of a government but that the government being formed by fptp is invalid. The pro-pr argument is not one made by anarchists since, obviously, pro-pr advocates are tolerant of a government formed by proportional representation. We need a government to prevent crime and uphold the law. But the problem with fptp is that it gives a false mandate to the government such that what normally would be a crime (appropriation of property without consent) is made legal. For example, taxation without a democratic mandate is illegal but the election makes it less illegal. If the election is invalid there is no way for the government to do anything legally.

Almost all of the actions of the government are justified by the democratic process and this is not strictly a problem. We do not object when the government arrests criminals, and in fact the government is the only body who can rightly deal with law and order. We must have a government to prevent crime and this is why democracy is so important. If the government seizes power without holding an election there is no legal redress because the government has a monopoly on the law. At this stage (with an undemocratic government) all property is subject to government theft and the government can claim to be valid even if it was not fairly elected. If a government is elected via fptp it usually considers this to be a true mandate and proceeds to govern for the entire electoral term until the next election, usually for around four or five years. But this government is not valid and so everything which it does (when it is not elected democratically) is a crime and theft.

It is not uncommon for political parties to assume that fptp gives them a valid mandate to rule but this is not the case and to rule undemocratically is a form of theft. First past the post is theft because it (falsely) gives a mandate to politicians to govern when the people have not been given a true veto.

To govern using just first-past-the-post is a form of theft because the government can legally seize property from anyone. The only true and legal form of government is democratic and one which ensures all votes count equally, as in the case or either direct democracy or proportional representation. To govern without true democracy is theft.

If there is no government this is good for criminals

There can be little purpose in having a government if it is not opposed to crime. The government and the voting public are opposed to crime and they recognise that we have a right not to be subject to crime such as physical assault or the theft of our property. People in general, although perhaps not all, are opposed to crime and so when there is an election the voters will be opposed to crime. If voters are opposed to crime then a democracy will always be opposed to crime.

Democracy is bad for crime but if we do not have either a direct or proportional system then democracy is hindered which is to the advantage of crime and criminals. The first-past-the-post system is helpful to criminals because it disrupts the crime-stopping intentions of voters. Democracy and government stop crime but if we do not have a proportional (or direct) system then democracy (and government) is harmed and this is good for criminals. True government is democracy and so then fptp is not really true government, it is merely something which stands in the way of government and the people.

Government stops crime but if the government is not truly democratic (proportional) then it is not a government and there is nothing to stop crime. To stop crime we need a government but this means a proportionally-elected government, there is no government which is not proportionally-elected, we cannot stop crime with first-past-the-post (since it is a form of anarchy).

There is nothing wrong with representative democracy

Slavery is not merely insane on the part of the purported slave-owner but it is also arrogant to think that people can be owned. We know that people cannot be owned because the law rests on being helpful to mankind and where it ceases to be so then it is not valid. The law helps people and to be owned is unhelpful so people cannot be owned and slavery is illegal.

But the act of slave-owning is not merely a passive acquiescence with the prevailing (incorrect) laws, to own slaves is an active endeavour because the slaves must be threatened to prevent their freedom. If there are no threats (explicit or otherwise) the victim will safely walk free, so slavery is not passive, the criminal is taking positive action.

We can think of slave-owning to be a kind of insanity on the part of the criminal because they are unaware of the liberties of the victim, the slave-owner fails to see that people cannot be owned, but slavery is more than mere insanity, it is also arrogant because people (the victims) cannot be owned.

To be a slave-owner is to make the arrogant assumption that people can be the property of other people. This is an arrogant assumption and, since all arrogance is amusing at some level, it follows that to make the assumption of slavery is amusing. However grave their predicament, it is possible for the victim of slavery to laugh at the arrogance of the slave-owner to think that they have the legal right to own other human beings. Slavery is insane, but it is also amusing because the perpetrator has made the deeply arrogant assumption that they have the right to own other people, which they do not.

So slavery is not merely insanity, it is also arrogance and this fact better enables the victim to liberate themselves from this arrangement. If we see that slavery is funny and not merely disgusting then we remove it quicker.

First past the post is a form of slavery since the government doesn't grant to the electorate full democracy, which is slavery. We have generally considered this be to a disgusting lack of vision on the part of the state, but it is also funny. And when we see that fptp is funny as well as insane then it is easier to remove because our arguments against it are more immediate. First past the post is arrogant because it assumes the people are the subject of the state, whether they have an adequate form of democracy or not. And this is not the case.

First past the post is arrogant because the people cannot be owned, and so, because it is arrogant, it is also funny.