We are rich if we do not have any problems

We are not in a competition in the sense that the freedom of other people does not diminish me. Even the greengrocer is not made the (any) richer by the hunger of the stranger. Collecting money does not make us richer, the important part is that poverty has been removed.

Even solitary rights must be protected

There is nothing significant about the violence perpetrated by the State which makes it different from that enacted by criminals. Voting, or popularity does not diminish the nature of an action, if it is criminal. If we are being consistent, and we do not like violence, then there is no reason why we should be in favour of the violence perpetrated by the State. A Socialist, or someone who supports it, whether or not they have thought about its true nature, is supporting violence and by common deduction, is a violent person. The threats of violence used to enforce tax collection are not defensive.

If something is not paid for voluntarily, but instead from the use of force then it is violent and criminal since it is not chosen. The State (the majority) is not more important than the individual as far as ethics are concerned.

Ethics are relevant unless we are dealing with a matter of life and death when people will not be concerned as to the consequences. In no event will the number of people involved be a relevant factor for consideration; it makes no difference however many people might want to be aggressive, to obey natural law all must bow to and recognise the rights of (the) others, even if they are solitary.

Democracy should be an expression of negative rights only

The difference between negative rights and positive rights is that with negative rights, we are able to protect ourselves, with force, defensively. If we are initiating force, or violence this is an (apparent) expression of positive rights.

As far as Democracy is concerned, we are able to vote for a Government which may, legally, impose claims to both positive rights and negative rights on the population.

As we see in courts where the outcome is referred to the view of a jury, sometimes it might be preferable for decision making to have more than one opinion. If the majority of people questioned view the actions as criminal, it might be justified to take responsive (defensive) action against the perpetrator. In this case, seeking a majority decision might be reasonable. It is not reasonable to seek the view of the crowd in the case of positive rights, and popularity does not justify aggression.

The success of other people is beneficial to ourselves

We are not an island but if people do not want to collaborate with each other, then it is best to let them be, since if collaboration is profitable in the circumstances we can assume it would already have happened.

There is no way to subsidise collaboration for, if transactions receive a negative tax it would be possible to invent spurious trade and make endless profit. It is impossible to improve the world in this way. Force (when it is aggressive and removes choice) cannot be used to improve the world. It is not a problem if some people do not want to collaborate to the extent that it is imagined that they should do; they might be collaborating in a manner unseen. If we improve the world for ourselves then we improve it for everyone else, since it is shared.

Multiple winner constituencies would result in greater transparency and reduce political ambiguity

Single winner voting systems such as First Past The Post do not encourage parties to be clear about where they stand. To take the example of one of the main parties, to be particularly clear about their policies risks putting the electorate off, when they might otherwise attract their vote, and for the minority parties being ambiguous is helpful because, not being in any position to secure the seat people are not too concerned about what the party offers. Politics is better, more clear and offers more choice when all votes count and there are multiple winners to each seat, or constituency. This way people can be choosy about where they place their vote.

With a multiple winner system the leading parties now must compete for the vote, where they did not previously because they are facing opposition not (only) from the centre but now also from their own flank. If there is not one winner, but multiple winners sent from each constituency this results in more open elections, with more competition and greater transparency in political intentions and policies.

It is best to let people do as they want and make their own decisions

It's good to work together, of course, but the problem comes when we are compelled to do so. When we have no choice but to help others, in a manner prescribed by the Government this can lead to problems. It is better that we are not coerced into helping people.

Collectivism is not the problem; coercion is the problem. Coercionists do not allow people to choose how they will spend their lives, whether charitably or not. Coercionism is not a reliable philosophy because we cannot be certain what is the best thing to do and we have no objective process with which to deduce the best course of action, and which troubles to give our attention to. Coercionism fails people because it does not allow them to retain their autonomy.

Public services are unwanted and there is no consent under duress

People do not want to be coerced, by definition.

In the private sector people pay willingly, with consent so that they may receive the goods they desire. It is a willing contract of cooperation. In contrast, the public sector forces people to pay; there is no consent, since consent is impossible under duress and therefore we can say that public services are unwanted.

Being aggressive prevents people from getting what they want

It is immoral to initiate force, as this leads to an unearned loss of wealth on the part of the victim, for no reason. We are not being immoral when we trade with others. Being alive, by default we are good because we are reacting to our preferences as we would want, it is bad when we are aggressive.

We are good when we are doing nothing wrong.

Free trade is good.

To be able to choose means that we are wealthy

Without taxes we would be free to act on our preferences without interference; there would be free choice in all (peaceful) things.

There can be no better outcome than free choice since we do not know better than someone else what is good for them. Free choice is good for me and other people. For something to be good it must be chosen, if it is not chosen it is not chosen because it might be the wrong thing. The best thing to do is to leave peaceful people alone.

There is no reason to force people to pay taxes or do anything that they would prefer not to do.

Taxation is synonymous with coercion which reduces choice and is bad, by definition, things that are chosen are good. Wealth is defined by free choice and taxation reduces wealth.

Nothing is better than allowing people to make their own choices

If people are left alone, to be free this will result in the highest level of happiness because, by definition, interference is unwanted.

Unless we are to derive satisfaction and utility from being aggressive to other people, freedom is the most advantageous system for all. There is no better arrangement than freedom.

People who initiate violence are either stupid or selfish

It is impractical and a waste of resources to force people to pay for something.

If we are being forced to do something against our will, it can only be for the benefit of the aggressor, by definition there is no advantage to the victim, otherwise they would have the right to refuse. Even if they claim to be doing it for the good of others, this is false, they are doing it for selfish reasons.

The free market would be better than violence

Either the initiation of violence is not a crime or the State is being defensive against its citizens when taxes are collected.

If Socialism is not violent then inertia, doing nothing (on the part of citizens) is aggressive and it is being aggressive to sit around doing nothing. It is a contradiction to be against violence and yet support the services which are provided by the Government, since they rely on coercion. The free market or charities would be better.

Only bad people should be forced to pay taxes

It would be more logical, from a moral perspective, for people to be taxed if they are being punished for doing something wrong. This would tend to disincentivise the bad behaviour. If we are not being harmful to others, then we should suffer no taxation.

The tax revenue should be collected entirely from bad people.

A land tax would be better at promoting equality than to subsidise poverty

We can encourage equality not by promoting the poor, but by placing restrictions on the advantaged that specifically open up the opportunities for the rest. Rather than subsidies, if dominant players are prevented from entering a market then this gives a chance to smaller groups. If the advantaged are forced to relinquish their position of superiority, then others will populate it and this can be preferable if there is a plurality of people who gain.

Disincentives are more effective than incentives at promoting Social harmony. To encourage equality we should discourage individual wealth, not subsidise poverty, since as far as forms of stored material wealth are concerned, there is an upper bound.

Only parties that seek to address land inequality can be said to be progressive

A political party cannot claim to be truly progressive if it does not seek to address the problems of land inequality.

The simplest way for the State to deal with land inequality would be to impose a property ceiling, particularly with respect to land. This way, more land would enter the market which would then be sold at a cheaper price which is helpful to the poor. If a political party does not seek to address land inequality, it cannot be said to be progressive, in the modern age.

The right should challenge the assumption that the State is responsible for social welfare

People worried about social welfare will not be reassured by a party that seeks to reassure them, they will be reassured if they are being told the Government is going to do everything for them. Being told not to worry makes no difference. Without being told that the State will look after them, people will assume otherwise.

There is no point trying to reassure people if you are a centre right party, it is best to challenge the assumption that the State should function in this way.