AV doesn't change things for the better over plurality systems except to provide evidence of people's preferences

The alternative vote system offers no advantage over first-past-the-post, when we assume that the problem we seek to remedy is that of tactical voting. We vote tactically when we know that voting for our preferred, smaller party will not yield results, so we choose the least disliked of the likely winners. A voting system which is better than FPtP would seek to remedy this problem but AV fails to do this.

With AV we have the ability to put in order, according to our preference, at least some of the parties (or candidates) that are standing. We are able then to reserve until a lower preference the party which we consider to be our least disliked or 'insurance' choice. This would be the argument (to be made) in favour of AV but if we are sure that only our insurance choice will count, there is little point in casting higher preferences for other parties. It is only for cosmetic or rhetorical reasons that we would bother to vote for other parties ahead of our insurance candidate if we know that they do not stand a chance; it might be useful to point to the lack of proportionality in the system (as reflected in the first preferences that do not result in representation) but we have no more ability to alter the outcome than under the existing (plurality) system.

AV is useful only in so far as our ability to register our disapproval of the main parties is enhanced, it doesn't provide any greater means to have a meaningful impact on the overall result.

Single winner seats restrict democracy because only the big parties do well

If there is only one representative Member of Parliament advanced from each constituency, as with most forms of first-past-the-post being used around the world, then this gives great advantage to the main parties.

Generally, the main parties, be they of the 'left' or 'right' will dominate and in some cases, entirely monopolise between them the seats in parliament. It is only if there is a more proportional system that smaller parties can get a fair chance and this can be delivered by extending the number of MPs from each constituency from a solitary member to a plurality. The more MPs in each seat (from each constituency) the greater the degree of proportionality that will be delivered, which improves democracy.

Proportional representation is better for liberal candidates

The best form of Democracy is that which enables the voter to reject as many ideological forms of Government as possible, by choosing the most liberal candidate.

Typically, with a single winner system, there is no possibility to vote for the liberal candidate because only an ideological (populist) candidate has a chance to do well. A proportional system removes the need for a candidate to seek this type of populism meaning that liberal candidates do better in this system.

We own our own labour since we own ourselves

When the Government spends money, the source is either direct taxation, increasing the National debt or printing money. There is no advantage to the Government spending money, where it could otherwise have been retained and spent by the individuals of the country. We do not have a right to healthcare or education, or any other service which is paid for through coercion. We have no right to the labour of other people, we own our own labour, since we own ourselves.

Failure to repay a debt of money is not a crime because ownership is transferred

It is a crime to fail to repay debts only if we have physically obstructed the lender from gaining access to the object which was loaned. If we have not used physical force to prevent the loan from being repaid, then we have committed no crime and no arrest can rightfully be made. So then unless the loan is of a physical object which we expect to be returned (in itself) and ownership is not transferred to the borrower, then we have no right to punish those who do not return the debt. We cannot expect a person to be obliged under law to return something which is not physical, or something which is generic. In the case of money, we do not harm the lender if we fail to return a debt because the money has been spent and it was not expected that we would be able to return the precise notes and coins. If ownership has transferred then we cannot be preventing the lender from regaining access to the material object, since it is no longer theirs, and we commit no crime if we fail to make a repayment. Only if the lender retains ownership of the object do we (can we) commit a crime by obstructing repayment.

We have no obligation to help anyone if we do not wish to do so

To enter into a contract means that we have an understanding of what we expect of our counterparty, and what is expected of us. It can be useful to be clear to other people what we would like them to do, so they do not waste their time, if they fail to meet their end of the bargain then there is less reason to work with them again and they have suffered a reputational loss.

If someone fails to meet their contractual 'obligations' to us we have no reason to retaliate with force, they have not been aggressive and so they have not committed a crime. It is better (closer to reality) to have the hope that they will do as we wish as opposed to the expectation of such. Our employer has no obligation to give payment to its staff as failure to do so is not an active crime. No one has any obligations to you.

No crime is committed if we fail to pay back money that we have borrowed

Very often we use the word 'loan' to describe two types of contract which are slightly different; we have the conventional loan which concerns the transfer of a physical object (specific) for use over a limited period of time but then there is a different arrangement whereby a specific quantity of a commodity (generic) is transferred with repayment expected at a later date, possibly with interest. An example of the former might be to lend a vehicle, or tool for use over a period of days, the latter would be to loan to a neighbour a cup of sugar or a can of oil, expecting repayment (in kind) some time later. In one case we expect to get back exactly the object which has been provided, not in the case of a generic loan.

In the case of a specific loan, ownership of the object is not transferred to the borrower, the lender merely agrees not to contest ownership for a period of time. At the end of the loan the original owner is free to reclaim the object and if there is interference from the borrower, they are violating the rights of the lender, which would be criminal, assuming the loan contract is valid. For a generic loan the ownership of the issued materials is not contested, it has passed to the borrower and repayment in kind only is expected and there is nothing for the loaner to reclaim. Whilst it is preferable for the borrower to do their best to return the borrowed items, in this scenario, they are not retaining any physical property and subsequently they are not committing a crime (only breaking a contract) if they fail to repay the debt.

Only if the borrower is preventing the original lender from reclaiming their property do they commit a crime for not repaying the debt, otherwise they have not done anything criminal. It is not criminal to break a contract. If the debt is generic we suffer only a loss of reputation in not making repayments, no crime has been committed against the lender.

It is not the responsibility of the State to protect customer deposits

Without the protection of the State a bank with insufficient reserves would suffer a bank run, since the customers would demand their money back. If it doesn't matter to anyone that the bank has been profligate with deposits, due to the presence of deposit insurance, then there will be no fear of insolvency and the customers will not worry. Reserves, when there is fiat deposit insurance, then become irrelevant.

It is because reserves are irrelevant that the banks have been able to continually inflate the money supply, customers realise that narrow money (cash) is no more valuable than bank deposits, assuming the insurance can be trusted.

Customers and banks create new money when a deposit is made, at a bank, with deposit insurance the bank now has use of the money, no longer the customer, to make loans or investments which will influence prices just as before, and the customer has a new deposit. If the bank does not own the money held in its vaults, contrary to the situation presently, then it cannot make investments and the money will be removed from the economy, no longer influencing prices, (neither the bank, nor the person receiving the outside loan or investment is able to use the money to cancel and pay off debts) and subsequently there will be no inflation and no new money creation when deposits are made.

To prevent the ability of banking institutions to increase the money supply and cause inflation, either the protection for deposits can be removed, to allow bank runs, or it can be made illegal for the bank to invest and or loan deposits outside of the bank. In either scenario there remains the problem of how to treat the existing institutions which have very many more deposits than they are able to redeem.