It's not fair that only the banks are able to increase the money supply

The banking system relies on the Government to prevent insolvency.

Bank credit is valuable, to people, only because it is recognised by the Government and can then be used for tax payments. Without the Government people would not value either bank deposits or cash. The banks are existing and have not collapsed only because of the Government, and especially because of deposit insurance. Without the Government they would not be solvent.

Banks are not subject to the pressures and rigours of the free market

Because of the nature of fiat currencies and deposit insurance, banks are not prevented from (there is no disincentive against) having more deposits than there are reserves, as would otherwise be the case in a free market. Banks are not held to the natural disciplines of the market, they are not able to fail, they do not provide a service like a normal company. We get free banking so that the bank can loan the money without having to borrow it from another bank, they would have no interest in doing this (for free) without deposit insurance. Receiving deposits enables them to increase the money supply, which subsidies bank accounts, only because of their ability to increase the money supply are banks likely and willing to do this, it is an unnecessary compensation that we (citizens) receive. If people instead paid for their banking at banks with full reserves, this would not happen. But even if people use these banks, they, the banks, should not (exploit the insurance and) repeatedly loan the money out anyway. When banks loan money it has not come from someone willing to be without the money for a period of time, it has come from bank deposits, so in that sense, it has not really been loaned. Money received (for repayment) from a bank is not a loan because no one has ceased to have use of the money. A loan is where the ownership of an object has switched for a period of time, but with a bank no one owned the money to begin with.

If, on the other hand, we consider the bank to have true ownership of reserves then the depositor has nothing more than bank credit and no claim on the deposited funds. The reserves of a bank are not truly owned by the bank, they are part of the State and not part of the money supply; the quantity of reserves does not alter prices. When a bank 'loans' money the money for the loan comes from the reserves which are not part of the economy and it is for this reason that the money supply (and the price of goods and services) increases when a loan of this type (by an insured bank) is made. Banks are not part of the free economy because reserves held in the bank do not influence prices, the degree of insolvency is irrelevant.

Proportional representation is a stronger form of Democracy

Proportional representation is a more powerful system of electing leaders than to have FPtP. It is more powerful because it makes it more difficult for malign politicians to thrive, because we are able to choose better parties, even if we identify broadly with their position. It places pressure on each party to do well, not only to beat the other side.

To hold an election is a violation of the natural rights of others since a derived authority is assumed

We know from truth that Governments are not wanted and yet people assume, we must deduce, that they are a valid entity and not (inherently) aggressive. When elections are held it on this false assumption that the premise rests. Elections are aggressive and Governments are not wanted so there is no valid justification for them to take place, and to exist. We have a natural right to be free of elections and free from tyranny. Elections are a violation of our natural rights and civil liberties.

There is never a reason to impose punishments for failure to repay debt and then for that reason debt does not exist

There are strong arguments to say that in the case, specifically, of monetary debts, there is no justification in imposing punishments for failure to repay: http://bit.ly/g0fJCM

In the case of general debt, the arguments are perhaps less strong but equally valid.

We know that there is no (or at least very little) incentive to repay a debt if there are no punishments associated with a failure to repay, except perhaps to maintain our good standing in the community. For debts to exist, in a legal sense we must have the possibility (risk) of some form of punishment being imposed upon us. But for the use of force to be valid, it must be defensive and it is difficult to see how failure to repay (inaction) can correctly be characterised as an aggressive act. Even if we (as the debtor) oppose efforts made by the creditor to reclaim the loaned object (in the case of non-monetary debts) we might, in some sense still be being defensive, if the ownership of the object is in dispute in our mind.

If we fail, or refuse to return an object once it has been loaned this is not equivalent to saying that the object has been stolen. We have not stolen something if we fail, or refuse to give it back once it has been loaned to us.

Unless bank credit is worse than cash then it is money

When banks issue deposit accounts they are increasing the money supply and printing money. Banks do print money when they extend deposits because they are guaranteed by the Government. If 'money' is assumed to be only cash then of course banks do not print money, but this is not the true definition. Banks print money because the word 'money' means more than simply cash, it generally means the most widely circulating medium of exchange, by most definitions. Because the definition of money is more broad than is assumed, commonly, when people say that banks do not print money they are stating a falsehood if they mean only that they do not print cash. The most commonly circulating medium of exchange is (made up of) a combination of bank deposits plus cash outside the banking system. To establish that banks do not print money, we must show how bank credit is inferior to legal tender cash. If bank credit is not worse than cash then it is money.

Governments do not have a right to exist and there is no reason for them to be recognised

Without hierarchies no crimes can exist because each crime assumes an unequal claim on natural rights. We have a right to be free of aggression. We have a right to be free of Government.

Proportional representation enables people to vote for whoever they like

The first past the post (FPtP) system of voting means that we have fewer political parties than we otherwise would have, and this in turn prevents the existence of coalition Governments. If we assume that the greater the proliferation of small parties, the less like 'Government' the Government becomes (due to their being a coalition, always) then FPtP prevents the erosion of, and protects the stability of the State.

Banks can print money only because of deposit insurance and the existence of Government taxation

A combination of taxation and deposit insurance means that banks print money. The existence of taxation means that Governments are able to dictate which assets have artificial value, by fiat. Deposit insurance means that bank deposits also have (are given) value, by extension, from the same source as the value of fiat currencies, which is taxation.

The banks don't care who they lend to because they are insolvent

Immediately borrowing the money you have just deposited (in a bank) results in an equivalent amount of money remaining outside the banking system and there are now new deposits. The money supply has gone up because the deposits are guaranteed. Creating debt, such as a mortgage, increases the money supply. You can put the money you have just borrowed back into the bank and your account will be twice what it was before, but you will now have some debt as well, and the bank is ready to lend again having received new cash. This can continue for as long as the bank is willing to lend, and if the bank charges less in interest than it is possible to make on an investment, perhaps in Treasuries, this is a source of free income. Once the bank is insolvent there is no reason not to continue to lend to people who will not be able to pay the money back.

Lending deposits should not be allowed for banks with deposit insurance

The Government does not need to borrow money because it can print it, it is because citizens cannot print their own money (unlike the Government) that they must borrow it if they want to get on the housing ladder.

For most people, the only way to get equity in a house is to borrow money from the banks (only people who borrow can get a house) because they are not able to print money of their own. The choice has become between having a mortgage or not having a house. It is difficult to have a house without having a mortgage, houses are for people who don't mind debt. It doesn't make sense for the Government to allow banks to increase the money supply, which removes the natural punishment for profligacy provided by the market, as it hurts the citizens. Reserves would not be removed from the money supply (they would count towards prices) if deposit insurance did not exist. Normally customers would lose out if their bank did not keep their money safe but with deposit insurance the banks and their customers are protected. Deposit insurance protects people who use a bank that lends deposits, which (the lending) is a bad thing only as a result of deposit insurance. Without deposit insurance banks and anyone else could lend money with no harm to third parties, the insurance Socialises lending. Deposit insurance means that when a bank makes a loan this increases the money supply because the deposits are protected, without it, lending would not increase the money supply. Banks cause inflation only because of deposit insurance.

In an ideal world banks would not lend money that has been deposited with them for safekeeping. They (the banks) should not be allowed to lend deposits if they seek also to have deposit insurance.

Money is no more than whatever the Government thinks that it is

There is no definition of money which is not satisfied by bank credit, with the existence of deposit insurance.

The only reason there is not a run on the banks is due to the insurance. Without the insurance there would be a run on the banks.

We don't need deposit insurance (to maintain the stability of the banks) all that is required is for the Government to recognise bank deposits, just as they do with cash. If the laws to do with legal tender are extended to include bank deposits, deposit insurance can be removed without consequence. Removing deposit insurance would make no difference in those circumstances. If the Government does not (seek to) recognise bank deposits as money then it makes no sense to provide deposit insurance. Deposit insurance means that banks can print money, for money is nothing more than what is recognised by the Government, it is only what the Government thinks that it is.

Everything is money unless it is not suitable to the Government

Everything is money until it has been rejected by the Government.

The Government assumes that bank deposits are as good as cash and so it provides deposit insurance. Deposit insurance results from the belief held by the Government that bank credit is as good as cash. The Government (apparently) doesn't have a problem with banks increasing the money supply, otherwise it would not provide deposit insurance. Deposit insurance means that the banks can increase the money supply. The Government doesn't care that banks are allowed to inflate the currency, it considers deposit insurance to be more important. We can have either a stable money supply or deposit insurance, not both.

With deposit insurance there is no disincentive against inflationary lending. Without deposit insurance fractional reserve banking (FRB) would be difficult, the insurance makes it much easier.

It's easy for the banks to operate in the way that they do because of deposit insurance, the insurance makes it easy for them.

If taxation exists, we must assume that everything is money until it has been rejected by the Government, we do not know what they will take, and they still take (have not rejected yet) bank deposits. Bank credit is (still) money (of interest to the Government, the holders not being punished) until the Government say otherwise and withdraw the guarantee of deposits. Until the Government guarantee is revoked, bank deposits will remain no less valuable than cash.

In a fiat economy money is whatever is not rejected by the Government, for taxes, and so bank deposits (and lots of other things) are money until they have been rejected. It is the opinion of the Government which affects the value of bank deposits, not that of individuals, and as a result of deposit insurance we can say that deposits are (a form of) money.

The crimes of the State are obscured by the fact that voting is popular

Voting makes it easier for the State to be violent because it looks popular

Normally violence is wrong but because we vote, and the Government have a majority, it seems like the violence is acceptable to people. Voting makes the (a) Government seem normal. Governments are not normal.

When we vote for politicians we are giving them our approval to continue their actions. To vote is to collaborate, certainly it is no less than a negotiation with them. Voting is to recognise and give respect to those who seek to be aggressive and violent to other people, as away of life. Instead, it would be better to isolate and exclude such individuals so that they will perhaps behave better. It is a form of disobedience to be inactive in this way, by not voting. Voting allows politicians to feel included and accepted in civilised Society, it normalises the violence and makes it (seemingly) more typical. Having a Government is unnatural and unhealthy. The Government want us to vote so (for the reason that) it seems like they are normal. Not voting will make them look even more (obviously) violent and awful since the legitimacy will be lessened. Voting is evil not because it legitimises the harmful actions of the State (it doesn't) but because it makes it easier to get away with the crime, due to the concealment.

In a free Society criminals fear everyone not only the State

Anarchism provides (natural) security from the crimes of strangers which is removed by the State. The State makes life more dangerous (for lawful people) because it is they (the State) who will deal with the actions of a criminal, not the victim, and criminals have less to fear as a consequence. The stigma associated with crime is partially removed by the Government and there is less reason to fear retribution from those who we have offended since it is illegal for them to take (direct) action against us. In a free Society everyone is potentially a lawmaker, not only the Government and we must, in part, fear everyone, not only the State.

Unless the Government plans to default on its debt it might as well just print money rather than borrow

There is no strong reason against monetising the national debt or even defaulting on it.

The National Debt is money owed by the Government to any private agency within or outside the country, domestic or international. This can be money owed to private investors, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign countries and so on. There are generally very few restrictions placed against people owning Government debt and it is usually held in the form of Treasuries (for longer-dated liabilities) or bills and notes for more short-term debt.

People, especially politicians, worry about the perceived reliability of the debt, often taking it by extension to be a statement on the fiscal heath of the country (or economy) as a whole. But in reality, many of the biggest economies have borrowed to such a great extent that to repay the debt in the expected fashion - to raise repayments from taxpayers - would now be impossible. The debt is so great that only by means of either continued borrowing or actually printing money would the outstanding debt ever be paid back. In a fiat economy both of these options (printing and continued borrowing) are continually available to a Government that has borrowed heavily, since there is no physical impediment against increasing the supply of money.

If the debt has become such a perceived problem for the Government that heavy tax increases are being considered, it is possible that the Government could instead default on the debt. For an ordinary citizen, the disincentive against doing this is that we would find it more difficult to borrow again in the future; our credit rating would have been affected. For Governments this is not a problem since they, effectively, have access to the printing press which means they can always get hold of money when they need it. The most significant argument against defaulting on the debt would be the moral hazard of defrauding holders of Treasuries who are relying on the assets to be valuable, perhaps for their retirement, which would result. But weighed against this is the fact that taxes are being collected from poor people all the time, including pensioners, so in many ways a default of the Government debt can be seen in this way as a progressive measure. Also, people who have lost out in their savings, as a result of a default in the Government debt might be compensated with the issuance of some new base currency, thereby partially monetising the debt. There is no persuasive reason to keep the debt lingering around. The economic damage caused by Government borrowing (inflation, an increase in prices) is no worse than that resulting when the Government prints money outright and so there is no real reason to be fearful of replacing the Government debt in the economy with another form of currency such as physical notes and coins.

It is only if there is a genuine risk of default that there is a difference between Government debt and actual base currency, and since we can assume that the Government never intends to default on the debt it might as well just issue new currency rather than debt.

There is no reason to prefer cash is there is deposit insurance for the banks

Bank credit is taxpayer credit; there is no difference between being owed money by the bank and by the Government, if there is deposit insurance.

If the (licensed) bank owes you money, then the Government owes you money. Banks might not be able to 'print money' in the conventional sense, but the Government can. A bank is (part of) the Government if it can cause inflation, enabling people to pay their taxes more easily. Cash is not more valuable than bank credit if deposit insurance exists.

Deposit insurance is required because banks do not retain customer funds

If the banks didn't steal our money there would be no need for the inflation. The inflation (deposit insurance) is because of the theft. There would be no need for deposit insurance if banks maintained full reserves.

If a bank lends money it will be increasing the money supply

The banks increase the money supply when they loan deposits. An organisation with a banking license 'should' refrain from lending out deposits given that, by doing so they will cause inflation.

The problem with the banks is that they are doing fractional reserve banking. This means that they can increase the money supply, it would be better if they held all deposits in reserve so that the taxpayer is not required to protect their customers. Given that we are not able to hold them to account by withdrawing our funds because of deposit insurance, they should refrain from lending out deposits, otherwise they are increasing the money supply.

The banks are not very forthcoming about explaining how banking works

Banks are able to increase the money supply and yet there is no Democratic accountability, unlike with the Government.

The existence of deposit insurance means that depositors don't care whether or not the bank is making risky loans, which enables the money to leave the banks, only to be recycled again as deposits. If there is deposit insurance there is nothing to prevent profligate banks from taking (and thereby creating) almost unlimited deposits. Then an account at a bank with a good reserve ratio is worth the same as one at a bank with only very few reserves.

Deposit insurance makes the reserve ratio irrelevant for customers and so there is little disincentive against banks lending recklessly, the owners, shareholders, management and employees are still able to collect earnings (from interest payments) even if the reserve ratio falls and the bank falls into a version of insolvency. It is not surprising then that the banks do not explain their system better, printing money is not something most people would welcome.

Bank deposits have value only because the Government will accept them

We are forced to value cash and we are forced to value bank deposits.

There is no reason why a bank deposit would be worth less than cash. It's not true that cash is worth any more than bank deposits.

Like Treasuries, bank deposits are a form of money. In a fiat economy, 'money' is whatever the Government directs it to be, and so it is possible that banks can print money, in that sense. If the liabilities of banks are guaranteed then they will be able to print money because (fiat) money is nothing other than Government liabilities. If banks cannot print money then neither can the Government. So, we might very well say that there is no such thing as money, since the concept (apparently) seems to rely on being able to create wealth from nothing, with money being the thing that results from this magic. And since no one is magic, there is no such thing as money.

Banks are able to print tax tokens, due to their being protected by deposit insurance. Something cannot be money unless it has a purpose like a computer, or a television, or food, from whence it derives its value. Fiat money is not a true store of value, and thus it is not money.

No one can print money, nothing of value can be printed out of thin air and so not even the Government is able to do this.

The presence of deposit insurance means banks can increase the money supply because, of course, they can increase their own liabilities. Cash is nothing more than something given value, by instruction, by the State, so if banks have deposit insurance they too are able to print something (of value) equivalent in value to normal cash.

Having deposit insurance means that banks cannot go bust, in the conventional sense. Their liabilities will always have value because (or until it ceases to be that case that) the Government retains the ability to print money out of thin air.

Not everyone realises that the banks have the ability to increase the money supply

If people don't realise that banks inflate the money supply then banks have duty to inform people of the realities, otherwise it is theft.

Fractional reserve banking is a violation of property rights, only because people don't realise their money is not kept in a vault at the bank. A fraud like this is a type of theft because the customer is not being given what they expect, without the deception there is no crime because we get what we expect. It might be forgivable if the banks do not consider that their customers are not (might not be) aware of the reality, if we are aware of the trick (and that the customer might not know about what is going on) then we have stolen from the customer, and are guilty. We, as bankers have no responsibility towards the customer (we are free to assume they know what is going on) but if we suspect that they might be assuming a different model of banking then we do have a duty to properly inform them of the truth, failure to do so is a negligence on our part. It's not fair to sell someone something they believe to be something else, it is (becomes) a form of theft and exploitation when we discover that they are making different assumptions about how the system works, or that in fact they are ignorant of the existence of a banking system to begin with, assuming it only to be a warehouse vault.

A commodity is not money if it does not alter prices

Money is something that alters prices.

When a bank makes a loan it puts more money in circulation, this effectively creates money because a reduced reserve ratio does not alter the quantity of bank deposits and money held in reserve doesn't alter prices.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of theft because when the money is deposited, the cash is spent into the economy (perhaps to purchase a mortgage) not kept in a vault, and instead the customer is given bank receipts (credit) instead of a warehouse account.

Cash is not money if it is not 'active' in the economy. If cash is held by banks, in their vaults, is does not alter prices and so, for that reason, it is not money in the truest sense. A bank with full reserves alters prices to the same extent as one with no reserves, hence cash cannot be said to be money in and of itself, it can only be money if it is outside the banks. It is not money in all cases. Cash might be money if it is altering prices.

The problems with the banking sector derive from deposit insurance

The problems with the banking sector, such as inflation and price uncertainties are due to deposit insurance. Without deposit insurance there would be a banking crash, but with deposit insurance there is no reason to prefer cash over the liabilities of an (otherwise) unsound bank.

The money spent by Government is not spent well

The Government spends the money collected by taxation on projects and services which have no value, hence wasting and destroying resources. The money is spent on vanity projects, needless and ornamental activities which might make people (those that are responsible) feel better about the theft but achieve nothing worthwhile.

The Government is not a charity because it uses violence to achieve its ends

There is no place for charity in Government, the two should be divorced entirely.

The Government is not responsible for forcing us to do our own charity work and it has no right to take the credit for anything that is achieved using coercion. Stealing money makes it easier for us to do charitable work but the money taken cannot be used by the original owner to carry out what they want to get done, it reduces the charity that can be done by individuals. People feel good about helping others, it gives them pride and so when the Government (almost) monopolises charity it blocks this avenue to well-being, for the citizens. Government provision of healthcare, for example, prevents anyone from individually providing this service because it is already taken care of. Governments monopolise charity since there is no reason why a helpful person would not join the public sector, they can help people (which is what they originally wanted) and get paid for it. In this way, the Government 'crowds out' private charities to the detriment of everyone concerned, both the recipients of the care and those participating, by effectively paying off and buying those who are interested in helping others. It enables people who would like to help others be lazy and take a salary, rather than be committed to the charity.

The Government is not being charitable if it requires the use of violence, in the collection of taxes, to achieve its aims. The difference between Government and charity is the monopolisation (and use of) of force.

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.

Government can help the poor only by removing obstacles in their way not with positive endorsement

It is misguided to think that Government using force can create good, the only good possible, using force, is to remove the problems suffered by other people. We cannot help someone by making them do something against their wishes. Forcing people to pay taxes helps no one (it does not help the victim, by definition) and neither can third parties benefit from the suffering of another person. Suffering is good for no one. The only way to help the poor is to enable access to resources, by limiting the extent to which other people are able to own assets, or other kinds of Capital.

If a bank has a deposit guarantee from the Government then it is a fully reserved bank

Modern banking systems are described as practicing Fractional Reserve Banking, but this is something of a misnomer. To use the term 'fractional reserves' suggests that bank deposits are not themselves a from of money, but the deposit guarantee indicates that they are regarded (considered) to be money by the authorities, which, in a fiat economy, assigns monetary status to bank deposits. So banks have fully reserved liabilities because of the deposit guarantee and (due to the fact that) Governments consider bank deposits to be a form of money, which then makes them money.

The deposit guarantee means that banks no longer have fractional reserves, they are fully reserved.

Money is what the Government thinks that it is which is why banks are able to print money

If banks do not print money then there would be no need for deposit insurance. It is because bank deposits are money that the State must support the banking system with deposit insurance. It is because bank credit is money (in the opinion of the Government) that we have deposit insurance, otherwise the banks would fail and there would be huge deflation.

It is immoral that banks can increase the money supply when others cannot

It is a moral law, or rule that we should have no higher powers than others, that we should not have any exclusive rights above other people, and so be equal, and yet banks have the ability to increase the money supply when no one else (apart from the Government) has this right.

Banks are not special it is because of the Government that they are able to cause inflation

The presence of deposit insurance means that no one is deprived of money when it is loaned from the banks. This means that not only the person borrowing has the money, but also the person loaning the money has it also, the deposits remain in place. This type of magical money creation is not possible in the private sector. It is for no other reason than Government interference that banks are able to increase the money supply, not because of anything special that banks do.

In a free market it would not be so easy for people to get into debt

Without the deposit guarantee it would not be possible for people to increase the money supply by taking out a mortgage, they would need to earn it (the money needed to purchase an asset) in the conventional way. Having the deposit guarantee means that it is possible for people to obviate the need to earn money, it is a form of printing wealth in that sense. The lack of a free market means that people can easily get into debt, to acquire assets.

Deposit insurance ruins Capitalism because people are able to increase the money supply easily instead of earning wealth

The banks increase the money supply when a loan is made, even if the reserves are reduced in this process, the money will return quickly to the banks to enable them to make more loans. The person who made the original deposit now must rely on the Government guarantee, to get their money back, whereas before they were confident that the bank retained the money. If we don't trust the Government guarantee then we can use a fully reserved bank instead, by removing our deposits, the bank will not crash because the Government will simply print more and more. This process makes earning money (to mean protected value) difficult because anyone that is willing to get into debt can quickly become as rich as someone who must, for rear of debt, earn their money. If people can easily 'borrow' wealth this makes money worth very little, measured only by the unpleasantness of debt; people can earn more by taking out a large mortgage, hard work is made redundant and we compete to be worthy of being given credit.

Fractional reserve banking makes Capitalism fail to work properly because it ruins the value of labour and work, since anyone can have wealth if they can get an inflationary loan. It's easier to get a mortgage than to work for a living, when buying a house and we then see that land is the primary form of (material) wealth.

Inflationary banking makes it difficult to obtain property without being in debt

If a Government is able to print wealth in the form of fiat currencies, then all commodities will be measured with reference to it, it will be the unit of account, and hence the primary medium of exchange.

If the primary medium of exchange can be 'borrowed' from an inflationary bank then it is easy for people willing to face debt to obtain resources. Those that are unwilling to get into debt then face hardships, since they cannot gain property. At its most extreme, this type of banking results in a choice between obtaining property (and necessarily being in debt) and having nothing; we cannot both have (obtain) property and be free of debt.

We can be free and secure at the same time with no Government

Freedom is peaceful.

Since it is costly in any civilised Society to commit a crime, then in a free Society (where no crimes are allowed) there will be disincentives against committing crimes. True freedom will not allow crimes because free people are able to defend themselves, either individually or collectively. It would be difficult to be a criminal in a free Society because there is no legal privilege to entitle your actions, no Government and no crime is permitted.

A free Society would not allow taxation, or any form of coercion, by definition.

It is best to get rid of the Government if we have the option to do so

We are not being assisted by someone if we have no choice enabling us to refuse (the help) and especially if we are being forced to pay. A protection racket is harmful to its victims. We are victims of the Government.

We do more harm than good when we use coercion, almost always. We would be better off without the Government, they are not needed.

Proportional voting accelerates freedom because it gives voters more choice

If there is only one winner in a constituency seat then people will feel constrained to vote for one of the leading parties, be it of the left or right. This means that minority parties are excluded as people do not want to risk wasting their vote.

The advantage of enabling minority parties to do well is that it makes it possible (for voters) to enforce their core beliefs without imposing extraneous violations of liberty which they do not support. A voter that is illiberal in a particular area is able to be liberal in all others, provided they get their particular wishes enforced, or at least represented, they are not compelled to support a collection of prejudices, only their own.

We use the Government to make laws, to compel and prevent certain actions. If we can do this with precision, allowing all other freedoms where possible then this leads to more freedom and a smaller State. Excluding minority parties, as with existing voting systems, which are not proportional, reduces freedom because we have no choice but to support a party that is tyrannical in ways which we do not like.

If money is considered to be anything that can pay taxes then banks print money

As a consequence of the deposit guarantee, bank liabilities are supported by the State and, by extension, the taxpayer. No other business has the advantage of their liabilities being sponsored in this way by the State. It means that, in spite of risky business practices, banks can continue to stay in business even when they might otherwise be considered insolvent.

State liabilities can, of course, be used to settle a tax debt which makes it more difficult for the rest of the population to pay their taxes, as they are not able to issue State liabilities and must use their cash savings. Being able to issue State liabilities means that we have an advantage over those that do not have this ability, taxes are not a problem and people will pay (cash) to be given the State liabilities. So, the bank deposits can easily be converted, sold, if the need arises, into 'real' cash.

The Government will accept, not only cash, but also bank deposits (and perhaps also Treasuries, and even perhaps the promise of State services, such as healthcare or a pension) to settle a tax debt.

If the credit of a business is guaranteed, there is no (at least certainly, less) reason to execute good business practices, it will always be possible to make an income by selling your credit, if it can settle taxes. Bank credit will always have value if it can be used to settle tax debts. Bank credit is State credit which has financial value due to it being a suitable form of payment to settle a tax debt.

In general terms, money is (defined to be) the most commonly circulating medium of account, specifically in fiat economies we see that it will be the medium decreed by the State to have special value, hence a fiat currency. So, (in most economies) money is anything which can be used (is acceptable to the Government) to settle a tax debt and hence includes all State liabilities, we can assume, not only cash notes and coins.

The deposit guarantee gives value to bank credit which causes inflation and reduces the value of cash

Deposit insurance causes inflation.

If deposits are guaranteed then there is never a reason to fear a bank run and customers will always leave their money on deposit. This means that the banks cannot go bust in the conventional sense which results in price inflation because the value of bank credit is (mandated to be) equivalent to that of cash. The deposit guarantee gives bank credit value and subsequently reduces the value of existing notes and coins, there is less premium in holding cash as a result.

When banks are given a banking licence it enables them to cause inflation

Banks (as well as the Government) are permitted to increase the money supply, if they have a banking license. It is not only Governments that are able to increase the money supply. To be given deposit insurance is to enable banks to cause price inflation.

Not everyone is aware that the banks increase the money supply

Banking is fraud because there is deception (deliberate or otherwise) which leads to economic, or material gain. People are not aware that the banks have the legal entitlement to increase the money supply, and it is to the advantage of the banks that it remains like that because (we can presume) people would not tolerate the arrangement, they would vote against it. There is no particular fraud at an individual, local level, the fraud happens Nationally, globally across the entire economy and political jurisdiction. It is a fraud because people would prefer Government to be without it, if possible, were they to know about it.

Banking is fraud not at an individual level but because people do not know that banks are able to increase the money supply. It is fraudulent (or deceitful) not to inform the public, given that they assume only the Government is able to increase the money supply. It is better to inform our customers and associates of the arrangement between us, if there is a possibility of misunderstanding. Some people might not realise that the banks increase the money supply.

There is nothing special about cash to make it valuable above bank credit

In a fiat economy the physical nature of the money is not the crucial feature, instead it is the contract or promise encapsulated in the unit of account. Cash is arbitrarily valuable, it can be used to cancel a tax liability if there is no disincentive against paying taxes, and no one goes to gaol then there would be no value in a fiat currency. If it becomes too difficult to collect taxes then the Government will lose power and the underground black economy will thrive.

Given that there is nothing inherent in cash which gives it value, only what it represents then we see that (it makes sense that) bank credit has the same value since it performs the same role, being able to extinguish a taxation debt. There is nothing special about cash to make it especially valuable as compared against bank credit.

Fractional reserve banking would not be possible without taxation because the money would be worthless

Bank credit is valuable only because of the deposit guarantee. The deposit guarantee makes it valuable because then if the Government is to refuse it in the payment of taxes, it will be being a hypocrite.

The deposit guarantee makes bank credit valuable because it makes it suitable for the payment of taxes, without the Government and taxation bank credit would be worth nothing, as with fiat cash. Bank credit is valuable only because of the Government and taxation, it is a suitable substitute for cash because of the guarantee. It is the combination of taxation and the deposit guarantee that makes bank credit worth more than nothing.

Printing credit is equally damaging in terms of prices as it is to print cash

Taxes aren't legitimate, but since we have taxes and a fiat currency it is not right (fair and equitable) that some organisations are allowed to increase the money supply, to the exclusion of others. Printing money by banks is not a violation of property rights because it is not aggressive but it is not fair, equitable that they have this exclusive (legal) privilege.

People are not (very) concerned about bank inflation unless they are printing bank notes in a fashion identical to a typical counterfeiter. They think banknotes (legal tender) are the only form of 'real' money.

There is no reason to care about the relative quantities of narrow money to broad, all that matters (and all that affects prices) is the sum of bank deposits plus the small sum of money (cash) outside the banking system. It is no worse, in economic terms, for a bank or institution to print cash than it is for them to issue credit, if they have a deposit guarantee; it is no less bad to print credit, printing credit is equally damaging.

If bank deposits are guaranteed then they will always be a suitable form of payment to settle tax debts

Banks do not collapse even though they have insufficient reserves for the reason that, because of deposit insurance, bank deposits are like cash and are suitable payment to the Government for taxes. Bank deposits become a form of money (recognised by the Government and suitable payment for taxes) because of the guarantee. Bank deposits are money because the Government declares them to be so.

If the value of bank deposits is guaranteed by the State then they will always be suitable for the payment of taxes.

If bank deposits are guaranteed then they will be suitable for the payment of taxes.

A fiduciary medium or commodity (in a fiat economy, where the fiat currency is prevalent and dominant) has value if it can settle tax debts. Bank credit is able to settle tax debts because it is guaranteed, the guarantee must, we can assume, mean that it will be suitable to settle tax debts. It would be a contradiction for the credit to be guaranteed by the State and to not be suitable in the payment of taxes. If bank credit is not acceptable to the State in the payment of taxes then we can say that it is not truly guaranteed, conversely if the guarantee is true then it must always be a suitable medium with which to settle tax debts.

A behaviour is not ethical if it is not being returned and reciprocated

Taxation is not ethical, it violates the ethic of reciprocity because no one wants to be taxed, by definition and we are not able to tax the Government. Ethical behaviours are ones that are reciprocated.

Credit is money if it is guaranteed by the Government

A banking licence turns credit into money. The Government can turn anything into money, as it can collect taxes which makes fiat currencies valuable. Banks can print money (valuable fiduciary media) because they have been permitted to do so by the Government. Credit becomes money if it is guaranteed by the Government.

If banks can cause inflation it's not a free market and relies upon deposit insurance

A banking licence enables banks to cause inflation; it protects the institution from true insolvency. A bank run is prevented (they would go bust without the insurance) which means they they will continue to be able to issue credit at a high price.

Bank credit (deposits) are valuable only because of the deposit guarantee. Remove the guarantee and there would be a collapse of the banking sector. Banking relies on the deposit guarantee, without it there would be no inflation caused by lending from banks.

Perhaps we should just let the banks collapse? A Capitalist system would be allowed to collapse.

Banks cause inflation when they loan money, this is because the deposits remain in circulation, affecting prices. Normally, a loan would not influence prices. Aside from the inflation, the economic purchasing power of the lender (the depositor) is not altered. Loans outside the banking sector do not influence prices.

The currency is not a store of value if banks are able to lend deposits

If banks have the legal entitlement to lend out deposits this means new deposits may be created, causing inflation. Many new deposits may be created even if the sum of base money remains the same.

This is not a benevolent process if deposits are guaranteed, deposits are diluted (we have no choice but to use this currency) which might result in monetisation by the central bank. As a result of banks being able to loan deposits, the currency no longer remains a store of value.

Deposit insurance enables banks to cause inflation

It is the Government, not the people that wants to protect the banks.

If taxpayers are forced to pay for deposit insurance the onus is on the Government to show why they cannot be allowed to fail; we assume companies are permitted to fail, otherwise we would have unlimited money to spend. If companies are not permitted to fail they will have endless access to economic wealth, they will be able to spend forever. If banks cannot go bust they will be able to issue credit forever; not being able to go bust means we have the ability to issue money.

It is not out of ignorance that the banks don't collapse but instead the deposit guarantee

What is commonly known as a deposit at a bank is not actually a deposit. The word 'deposit' suggests that the money is available on demand and is being held for safekeeping. It is only because of promised Government intervention that the money is safe. It's not a deposit if the bank has the ability to lend the money out again, instead the customer has purchased the credit of the banking institution.

It is only because of the deposit guarantee that bank credit has value. Without deposit insurance the banks would collapse, it is not because of fraud that the banks are still solvent it is the threat of monetisation which keeps people's deposits in place.

It is not much of a problem to be in debt if there is constant inflation

Deposit insurance enables banks to inflate the money supply.

If there is constant inflation there is not much disincentive against getting in to debt. A fixed money supply means it is bad to be in debt.

The deposit guarantee is a subsidy of debts

The deposit guarantee is a subsidy of debt and means the banks will not be able to go out of business. They are already insolvent, but they can still continue to take profits.

The deposit guarantee gives value to bank credit and makes it money

The market is reassured by the deposit guarantee which enables banks to increase the money supply. Banks can print money because the market trusts the deposit guarantee.

If deposits are guaranteed then banks can print money. Banks are able to print money because of the deposit (credit) guarantee. The deposit guarantee is what prevents the banks from collapsing. The banks have much less in reserve than they owe on deposit because the money has been loaned and redeposited, which causes inflation.

Deposit insurance is a promise to monetise the debt; there is no reason to think this won't happen.

If an organisation is protected from insolvency then its credit will remain valuable and it has the ability to cause inflation, assuming a fiat currency is in place. If bank deposits are guaranteed then this will result in inflation because there is no disincentive against insolvency.

Banks cause dilution of the money supply.

Money is not only cash notes and coins but also bank credit, on deposit; it must be guaranteed by the State, so it is State credit. Definition: Money is anything which is guaranteed by the State. Cash (notes and coins) is not the only form of money, there are other kinds of money, including bank credit. Bank credit is a type of money.

It's not so hard to pay your taxes when you have the ability to increase the money supply

The right to impose taxation, for this author at least, relies on the assumption that only the Government can print money.

It seems unfair that we must pay taxes denominated in a currency which gives permission to banks to increase the money supply. Normal people must earn money (to pay taxes) but the banks simply print it. It is easier for banks (and their customers) to pay theirs taxes given that they have the ability to increase the money supply.

There is no reason to vote for higher taxes

There is no reason (all else being equal) not to vote for the party that offers the lowest taxes.

The Government should not be allowed to collect taxes, and it can be prevented from doing so by voting against it.

Proportional representation would remove power from the main parties

With a majoritarian voting scheme we have no choice but to pay attention to a candidate which we don't like and as a result this may mean that we must vote for their main rival. It is not enough to be voting for someone else as this vote may not count, we must balance this risk against the chance that our feared candidate will be successful. With a proportional voting scheme we have no (at least reduced) fear of a wasted vote and this enables votes to be cast on less popular parties, not worrying about having given space to a feared candidate to be selected.

Single winner seats give strength to the dominant parties

In majoritarian voting systems, it makes sense to cast your vote for one of the leading candidates; there is no point choosing a minority candidate because there is no chance this vote will count, it is better to influence the outcome between the favourites.

The leading candidates will generally be those endorsed by the main parties, and it is due to this dynamic that political parties emerge. This means that, in choosing their candidate, the main parties have an effective (if not in fact) monopoly on what might be termed the centre-right and centre-left. There would be less need for strong political parties if voters could be assured that a vote for a minority candidate would not be wasted. To enable this, it makes sense to allow more than one winner from each seat to be promoted to parliament. If there is more than one winner a vote cast for a minority candidate has a chance of success.

Proportional representation enables votes cast for minority candidates to be meaningful and as a result, this weakens the power of the main parties of both left and right. It is less vital for politicians to be part of the elite.

If candidates are being chosen for a representative position, such as parliament and not something presidential like being a mayor, then we can have constituencies with more than one representative, in a sense a parliament of parliaments.

One of the features of Democracy is that it tends to accentuate ignorances; if, among a large field, most of the candidates represent the truth and respect individual rights then there will be nothing to choose between them and it might be that none of them emerge as a potential winner and the vote will be split. If one of the candidates is ignorant in a manner held by a number of others who are voting, this politician will win, even with a small following.

If there are to be more than one winner chosen from the seat then this is helpful to the 'reasonable' candidates, they are not required to pander to the incumbent elite party who are seen as the natural opposition to ignorance.

We can help people if we want but we have no right to insist on their help or to force others to be charitable

There is no reason to force someone to do something they do not want to do, or to prevent them from doing something that harms no one but themselves. If people do not want to pay taxes, there is no reason to force them.

An action cannot be criminal if we must be informed of our obligations in advance. Theft is still a crime even if we do not realise that it is wrong. Then, failure to perform positive actions cannot be a crime because, unless we know about it we cannot be expected to comply. It cannot be a crime if ignorance, or forgetfulness is a viable excuse. It doesn't matter if we forget that assault is against the law, it remains harmful.

The reasons against natural law crimes are based in reality, it would be to deny reality to fail to see that other people do not want to be the victim of crime. But it is not denying reality to be ignorant of the reasons to be obliged to make a positive act, in this case the criminal is the accuser who relies upon myth.

Since resources are sufficient there is no need for aggression

It is an inconsistent position to be against communism and yet allow some form of Government. If some coercion is acceptable, even useful, then there is no limit on how much taxes are due. If some tax is good then more would be better. If slavery is not pleasant then there is no reason to tolerate even a small amount of it; there is no logic in not opposing all tyranny.

It is better to have the right to vote than outright dictatorship

A Government that will show restraint is one that will allow more liberties than the authoritarian alternative.

If there is no Government, it is only from (a) voluntary organisation that we would fear reprisals for aggressive acts, we would be free in the most complete sense.

There is no reason to participate in the political process, other than to oppose it. The Government are no more important than any other person, their popularity makes no material difference to their legitimacy. The fact that the Government uses coercion to gain wealth is no more legitimate than if a private organisation did so. There is no reason why the Government would logically permit people to vote. The Government is different from other coercive organisations in that they allow a vote, it would be even more illegitimate not to be allowed to vote. The tyranny would be worse without a vote.

It is dangerous if people confuse innocent actions for aggression

There is no reason that taxation should be permitted. Taxation is aggressive and harmful, if we want to live in a prosperous community then (to allow) taxation is not a good idea.

It is a crime to run a protection racket, there is no important difference when the Government collects taxes. In the case of someone who pays for a contract to be taken out on someone else's life, not only is the person who is hired guilty, but also the instigator. If we can assume there is a market value on crime, then to pay for it creates harm where there would be none otherwise; it is not only the person who does the physical harm who is in the wrong. Even wanting someone dead (particularly if the person has done no crime) is a bad state of affairs.

If people are blind to aggression they are a dangerous person to have around, since we might assume they are not so impaired. If people confuse aggression for defence, and think innocent people are criminals then they are even more dangerous; it is likely that such people will take pleasure in crimes, just as normally people will take pleasure in seeing justice.

Failure to pay taxes is not a crime

There is no need to make people pay taxes, or do anything, all of the services currently provided by the State; hospitals, a police service, would be provided by the voluntary and commercial sectors. Taxes are unnecessary.

People will perform only the minimum required contribution if they are being coerced, there is no incentive, with taxes, for them to produce above what is required. With 'progressive' taxes people must work more and more but their taxes are still not paid in full.

People will stop working if there is no incentive to produce.

If people are helpful and charitable then there is no need to coerce them into helping the State, as they are doing plenty of good already. If they are doing bad they can be locked up, if they are doing nothing (then) there is no reason why they should be forced to pay taxes. There is no reason to make another person do anything, there is nothing wrong with not paying taxes.

The individual has a right to be free of aggression from the group

It's more important not to hurt people than to have public services. If, to get something you (we) want, we must necessarily hurt other people then it is better that we do not have what we want. There is no situation in a civilised community that we would not prefer to avoid the harm of violence than to get the reward. We are not civilised if we are prepared to be aggressive to get what we want. It matters if the individual disagrees with the tribe.

The majority are wrong if they are aggressive, it is right to respect the smallest minority; the individual. People who advocate forced collectivism have no respect for the individual.

It is a good idea to prevent aggression if possible

Aggression is a sign of untested beliefs. If we have no prejudices against others then there is no reason to be aggressive, since we can assume that others are rational and mean us no harm.

In a rational society we can assume that we will not be attacked. The belief in (a priori) immorality is what often leads to aggression. Everyone is good unless they have done something which contradicts this fact. Since most people are innocent and want to be left alone, it is not appropriate that to vote should be a positive act. By default, the individual should be free of aggression. Being attacked should not be the default, it should only be when a crime has been shown that force is legitimate. The failure to have voted for a peaceful political party is not a crime. If other people have voted for a crime this does not absolve it.

Taxation is aggressive no matter how many of the population select a party that approves of it. Failure to resist forced collectivism is immoral because it enables the removal of choice from the individual. It is good to resist aggression.

For some people bank credit is a form of money and has value

Only an institution with a banking licence is able to help you pay your taxes, no other private institution is able to do this. We can take out a 'loan' from the bank and have our tax debt deferred to a later date, plus interest. Because the Government is willing to accept this debt it has value; other people will buy it, in exchange for goods and services. Owning bank credit means that we are better able to pay our taxes in the future, it removes a debt that we have, it is not valuable in what might be called an objective sense, only because without it we might be put in gaol. An analogy might be with medicine, we value it when we are ill, but on most other occasions it has little value to us.

The same is true with cash; it has no intrinsic value, especially now that the link to gold has been removed and so it is only valuable because without we are unable to pay our taxes. If not for the legal ability of the Government to be aggressive, cash would be worthless.

People who do not question the legitimacy of this type of aggression will work hard to earn cash so that they can pay their taxes, or for some other reason. This type of person is visible and easy to collect taxes from, they will value cash highly and it is partly for the reason that they value cash that they behave in this manner.

There is no reason why people who want cash would not want bank credit. For some people, bank credit is a form of money.

There is no purpose to aggression

There is no a priori reason to be violent if there are sufficient resources in the world. Being violent in these circumstances is needless and wasteful of human life. If there is no purpose to violence then it is invalid since it creates harm. Hurting someone else is not reasonable because being alive (or dead) is a choice for us each to make. There is no reason to desire the death of another person, except perhaps if they are a threat and a danger. It is good that other people are alive, even if they are annoying occasionally because it makes life more interesting and more of a challenge.

We learn from being irritated.

An entity is part of the Government if it is able to cause inflation

An entity which is able to cause inflation and increase the money supply should not, rightly, be described as a private entity. If an organisation is able to dilute the purchasing power of the currency then they are part of the State and must be regarded as such.

The Government should not be allowed to collect taxes

If we have not done a crime then we should (there is no reason that we should not) be free to make our own choices. There is nothing we should (positively, assertively) do, only things we should not. If things (actions) are not ruled out for their being aggressive then we are entitled to do them, if we wish.

We are free to do anything which is not a crime. Even if someone votes for it, it's still not acceptable for taxes to be collected; crimes are determined by their nature, not their popularity. Collecting taxes is not an allowed activity, as it denies choice and is aggressive. It's not a good idea to force people to pay for things because there is less incentive to provide a good service and they might get a better arrangement, for the price, elsewhere.

The free market is better.

Aggression is the use of force which is not justified and not defensive

The Government does not solve problems; it creates them.

Aggression always causes more problems (negative externalities) than it solves. Using violence to make (or prevent) a person from engaging in a particular action or behaviour, even with the intention to do good, will cause harm because the underlying motivation for the act has not gone away. The best way to prevent harm is to allow people to defend themselves in the most efficient manner.

Using violence creates a problem for the object (victim) and (by definition, it is not chosen) does not provide anything of objective value. Something which is undesirable for the individual cannot be good for the group, unless the person is a criminal, so then unless the citizens are by default criminal, which they are not, then Government aggression is damaging. A solution that is unwanted cannot be a solution. Something that is not chosen is bad in all cases, unless the victim is (or has been) a criminal.

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.