Saturday, 1 December 2012
Libertarians prefer proportional representation
Any party that doesn't support pr and replacing fptp (where it exists) with pr is not a Libertarian party... or is stupid. Libertarians realise that if there is a government then the only thing to constrain it will be democracy. Libertarians realise that (unless anarchy is the alternative) democracy protects the individual and provides freedom. This means that all Libertarians prefer pr to fptp. To be a supporter of fptp is to be a socialist or a communist. All Libertarians support pr over fptp.
Only pr is offensive to the state
The only way to be free from the government is democracy and if there is not proportional democracy this means that it is easy for the government to interfere in people's lives. To be free from the government (in a democracy) we need to have pr. Without pr the government will be socialist and interfere in people's lives. Only proportional democracies are liberal democracies.
There is nothing wrong with democracy
The purpose of democracy is to reduce the size of the government consistent with the desires of the people. Democracy is the opposite of socialism... the ultimate form of democracy is when everyone has complete choice not only over the government but also over themselves. Since no one chooses to pay taxes by definition we can say that full democracy would be statelessness. The state arises due to a lack of democracy. Democracy is the antithesis of the state.
First past the post is insufficiently democratic to ensure freedom for the people from the state. The state is tyrannical because of a lack of democracy. Proportional representation maximises democracy (if there is a government) which means that pr provides the least amount of socialism and statism. Choice is the opposite of socialism which means that pr is the most liberal form of democracy and government. The smallest form of government is derived from a system of proportional representation. Since fptp is the opposite of pr it is also the opposite of liberalism so fptp is (tyranny and) socialism. Fptp is oppressive because it does not give people enough choice in choosing their representatives. Fptp is the most statist and least liberal voting system. It is not good for the people not to have democracy because this means socialism and communism not liberalism. The government does not provide freedom it provides the opposite. If there is less government there is more freedom (by definition) so pr is preferable.
First past the post is insufficiently democratic to ensure freedom for the people from the state. The state is tyrannical because of a lack of democracy. Proportional representation maximises democracy (if there is a government) which means that pr provides the least amount of socialism and statism. Choice is the opposite of socialism which means that pr is the most liberal form of democracy and government. The smallest form of government is derived from a system of proportional representation. Since fptp is the opposite of pr it is also the opposite of liberalism so fptp is (tyranny and) socialism. Fptp is oppressive because it does not give people enough choice in choosing their representatives. Fptp is the most statist and least liberal voting system. It is not good for the people not to have democracy because this means socialism and communism not liberalism. The government does not provide freedom it provides the opposite. If there is less government there is more freedom (by definition) so pr is preferable.
Proportional representation is good for tactical voting
First past the post prevents the electorate from reducing the size of the state... we can assume that the purpose of elections is to reduce the size of the state otherwise the electorate would serve only to endorse everything the government wants to do. If elections are only to give a mandate to government (and not to reduce it) then there is no reason to have elections. The only purpose of (democracy and) elections is to constrain and reduce the size of the state. Democracy either reduces the government or it gives it a mandate... it never increases the size of the government. If there is less choice this can only mean the electorate is being denied an opportunity to reduce the size of the state. Fptp does not reduce the mandate given to the government by the people. (The government does not hesitate to act merely because fptp is not proportional.) In that respect it (fptp) offers no advantage to who seek to reduce the size of the state. Fptp is a barrier only to those who seek to remove their mandate from the actions of the government. Fptp is bad only for Libertarians not socialists. Only people who do not want to reduce the size of the state are offended by pr and think that it would be a problem. Libertarians do not hate pr only socialists hate pr. Fptp is bad for Libertarians because it 'forces' voters into choosing from two main parties... choosing the least socialist of two socialist parties. If the electorate are liberated this is bad for the government.
Tactical voting means that people are voting not for their naive and obvious choice but for a different party due to how the election is being organised. But in a sense all elections are tactical even if they are proportional. In reality we would like no government and to own ourselves which means that all votes are tactical whatever the (kind of) election. Being forced to choose from between only two parties means that we are not able to be tactical enough. Pr enables us to be more tactical because we can choose not only the broad kind of strategy we would like the party to take but also the specifics of the policy. Proportional representation is inherently more tactical than fptp... fptp is not tactical enough. Pr elections are more tactical than fptp. When people describe tactical voting in fptp elections what they are referring to is when people gravitate to the two main established parties... but this is not 'tactical' it is simply common-sense. It is very difficult to vote tactically in a fptp election. There is nothing wrong with tactical voting... it is good... which is why pr is preferable.
Tactical voting means that people are voting not for their naive and obvious choice but for a different party due to how the election is being organised. But in a sense all elections are tactical even if they are proportional. In reality we would like no government and to own ourselves which means that all votes are tactical whatever the (kind of) election. Being forced to choose from between only two parties means that we are not able to be tactical enough. Pr enables us to be more tactical because we can choose not only the broad kind of strategy we would like the party to take but also the specifics of the policy. Proportional representation is inherently more tactical than fptp... fptp is not tactical enough. Pr elections are more tactical than fptp. When people describe tactical voting in fptp elections what they are referring to is when people gravitate to the two main established parties... but this is not 'tactical' it is simply common-sense. It is very difficult to vote tactically in a fptp election. There is nothing wrong with tactical voting... it is good... which is why pr is preferable.
Pr reduces the size of the state
Democracy is the only thing which reduces the power of the government. The government can do whatever it likes provided it has a democratic mandate... which means that only democracy constrains government. That being said (and assuming we want a small government) then we would want to have the greatest amount of democracy possible to be consistent. First past the post is a problem because it is not democratic which means the government is not sufficiently constrained. Fptp does constrain the government to some degree but pr would be more effective. If there is more democracy it is harder for the government to do what they want. If we have more choice there is inevitably less government because even if people want some government (and are in some respects a socialist) this doesn't mean they are a socialist in all regards. For example they may want free schools but not free police... with fptp it is likely that such a voter would be 'compelled' to endorse both of these things. With pr they can select only the socialism they want... which produces a reduced state. Pr makes the state smaller because people have more choice about what kind of socialism they want.
No fptp government is legitimate
First past the post (fptp) is why voters can't get what they want... being forced to choose from between only two parties means that we have no choice at all. It is not democracy. Fptp is bad because it enables people to get (into) power who otherwise would be rejected by democracy. It enables unpopular people to have power... pr prevents this. Fptp is not democratic and therefore it is not a legitimate form of government. No government elected under a system of fptp can be considered legitimate.
Proportional representation is inevitable
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
The paradox of government and power is that wherever there is power there is always instability. We can think of power itself as a form of stability so in nature wherever there is power (and stability) there is powerlessness... wherever there is stability there is powerlessness and instability. And this is a form of paradox... there can be no power and no stability... not even a government.
Communism is a form of (power and) government. We see that wherever it is instigated it will eventually fall and fail. Capitalism (in contrast) can be thought of as the antithesis of communism and it is a form of 'government' whereby there is effectively no government and so there is nothing to fail. Capitalism is stable because it has no central power base. There is nothing to contradict. (It is intrinsically unstable... and therefore stable.) There is nothing to collapse. It has already collapsed. Power is distributed to members of the market... so in a sense no one has any power. Capitalism is stable because it is by nature inherently unstable. Only unstable things can pertain through time... such as capitalism. Communism is not unstable like capitalism so (paradoxically) it cannot be stable and survive and so it is then unstable like everything else. Because communism is not unstable... it is unstable. There is nothing which can be permanently stable.
The voting system known as first-past-the-post is also a kind of stability like communism in that it provides a rigid two-party structure for government (and is therefore in some sense rigid and permanent). But since nothing can be stable for all time apart from instability (everything must be unstable) we know that eventually fptp will collapse like communism. It will collapse either when one of the two dominant parties gets overwhelmed and controlled by people who believe in a proportional system or when the voters simply reject fptp as a model and support a third party (or fourth) which guarantees fair voting. This process is inevitable even though it can take a very long time.
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".
The paradox of government and power is that wherever there is power there is always instability. We can think of power itself as a form of stability so in nature wherever there is power (and stability) there is powerlessness... wherever there is stability there is powerlessness and instability. And this is a form of paradox... there can be no power and no stability... not even a government.
Communism is a form of (power and) government. We see that wherever it is instigated it will eventually fall and fail. Capitalism (in contrast) can be thought of as the antithesis of communism and it is a form of 'government' whereby there is effectively no government and so there is nothing to fail. Capitalism is stable because it has no central power base. There is nothing to contradict. (It is intrinsically unstable... and therefore stable.) There is nothing to collapse. It has already collapsed. Power is distributed to members of the market... so in a sense no one has any power. Capitalism is stable because it is by nature inherently unstable. Only unstable things can pertain through time... such as capitalism. Communism is not unstable like capitalism so (paradoxically) it cannot be stable and survive and so it is then unstable like everything else. Because communism is not unstable... it is unstable. There is nothing which can be permanently stable.
The voting system known as first-past-the-post is also a kind of stability like communism in that it provides a rigid two-party structure for government (and is therefore in some sense rigid and permanent). But since nothing can be stable for all time apart from instability (everything must be unstable) we know that eventually fptp will collapse like communism. It will collapse either when one of the two dominant parties gets overwhelmed and controlled by people who believe in a proportional system or when the voters simply reject fptp as a model and support a third party (or fourth) which guarantees fair voting. This process is inevitable even though it can take a very long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)