Some people might not like either of the leading parties

Governments are generally elected when the candidate with the most votes is selected and so popularity (in votes) is rewarded. This would (might) be the instinctive approach when we want to select the best of something but perhaps we want to not have such an effective government. It might be better for the candidate who gets the least votes to win and then we would have the ability to cast our vote against the person we don’t like. If votes are not counted negatively (whereby the person with the least wins) then we might suffer from the problem of popularity in government. It doesn’t make sense for us to be expected to endorse someone who has the ‘right’ to initiate force against us, by the authorities, it would be more natural that we are expected to reject bad candidates. A government (an authority) that assumes it is liked will see no problem with positive voting, negative voting better allows people to reject politicians.

The problem with Fptp is that we not able to vote tactically enough, rejecting parties because they have no chance of winning is not ‘tactical’ it is obvious and necessary.

It’s not absurd to think that some people might not like either of the leading parties and yet apparently some politicians think that it is.

It is because the Government is allowed to collect taxes in paper currencies that bank inflation exists

If the primary function of money is as a store of value then no aspect of that (function) is denied when a bank claims that such money (exists and) is owed, if they are believed by everyone. If someone with bank deposits feels as rich as someone with cash then this specific requirement of money is satisfied. If the bank is trusted, being owed by the bank is the same as owning the money itself. There is no fear that the bank will not be able to produce the cash when required. In a paper fiat economy if banks have deposit insurance they can inflate the currency and the Government can easily bail them out. With a commodity money it would be more difficult for the State to protect the banks, so it would then be more difficult for the banks to be permitted to loan out deposits. The Government would be more reluctant to defend the banks without being able to tax people in fiat money. If it is forced to tax in a hard currency then a bailout of the banks would be very difficult, as would general taxation. If paper currencies were illegal it would be more difficult for the banks to inflate the money supply because the State would be reluctant to permit expansion of the (owed) money supply, the reason (for the reluctance of the State) being as a consequence of this (bank inflation) the State would then be required to retrieve the hard currency which the electorate would object to. The banks would have placed the State in a difficult situation and likely (they) would have been rejected by the State. The State does not reject the banks because it is easy to accommodate them with the existence of a fiat currency, (if paper currencies are not illegal) there is no reason to make Frb illegal.

To constrain the State with a constitution is useless because whatever the State does is allowed by law. There is no point making it illegal for the State to violate natural rights, it is only a piece of paper, a recommendation. Although, due to the nature of banking, we can recommend that it is better to allow taxation to be collected only in (for the legal tender to only be) hard currencies rather than paper currencies.

Frb and deposit insurance means the banks have no incentive to keep healthy reserves

If the banking sector benefits from (having been given) deposit insurance there is no need for them to be prudent when it comes to customers’ funds, they have not defrauded the customer when it loans reserves, at least not in a direct sense. With full-reserve banking and no deposit guarantee banks would need to keep the money held in the bank vaults. Frb means the banks don’t need to (are allowed not to) keep the money in reserve. The market will not intervene in a run on the bank, as it would without the insurance, and there is no law against the practice of lending deposits. The deposit insurance has removed the natural incentive (for the bank) to keep all the money in reserve, the bank has no incentive to hold full reserves.

Fptp elections are more presidential pr is more collegiate

The purpose of a Parliament, rather than simply a President is that it allows for dissenting views. The various opinions of the population are not well expressed in the mind of one person, a negotiation between people representing the different metaphorical ‘constituencies’ of the electorate is preferred. PR is more collegiate for this reason because no longer are we represented by the two emergent leading parties, instead we have a diversity of views and the power is devolved.

Under Fptp the main parties do not need to be ‘small government’ parties. Because of Fptp elections are more like a mayoral election, with PR it becomes a fully representative chamber.

Under pr it might be possible to vote for a party better than the traditional choice

The main parties might not be good enough for some voters.

Fptp does not present a problem if all of the political complaints rest along a straight axis, there is only one political issue and subsequently there is no advantage in having proportional representation if we are only choosing degrees of (for example) taxation. It can be assumed that the main parties will adjust such that they will attract sufficient votes so that their political aspirations are not too compromised. If, however, there is more than one ‘axis’ along which people are motivated to vote (and are concerned about) then pr does present an advantage. People who disagree on one issue may have shared concerns regarding another, with Fptp voters must compromise these beliefs but with pr people on both sides can ditch their traditional parties and get what they want. No longer are voters consigned to having to make the choice between ‘left’ and ‘right’ but are now able to choose their preferences according to a richer, broader set of criteria. If there is more to politics than simply left and right, them and us, if there are more nuances then more people get what they want more of the time with pr. The traditional parties do not encompass the totality of political thought, people are concerned about more than the ‘major’ issues.

It is possible for people to want something (a candidate or a party) even better than what is being offered under Fptp.

Under pr voters would be able to leave an unpleasant party

The advantage of proportional representation over Fptp is that voters are able to endorse only a narrow form of ‘aggression’ by the State which they approve of, it is easy to reject an excess of aggression. With Fptp both of the leading parties may be aggressive in ways we do not like but we must choose one of them, if we vote. If we assume people will naturally seek to minimise the aggression they perpetrate at the ballot box, pr will led to a more liberal society, for this reason. If a particular aggression is insisted upon by more than half of the voters then it is likely that a law will result. Under Fptp it is in the electoral interests of the parties to offer a broad range of aggression so that votes will not be lost. Swing voters (like any other voter) may be unreasonably prejudiced in a particular way, consequently, both of the leading parties will need to promise a certain type of aggression which would not be relevant under pr. Normally, with pr this would be offensive to the rest of the voters (and hence damaging to the party) but with Fptp they have nowhere else to go and will vote for them anyway. Being unpleasant doesn’t sufficiently hurt the party for this reason, voters are not able to (or at least generally they will not) desert and punish their chosen party if it is aggressive in ways which they do not like, voters are stuck and cannot leave.

In a free market it would be more difficult for the banks to increase the money supply

General prices are not altered by the level of bank reserves. Cash reserves could be destroyed but still prices would remain the same, due presumably to the existence of deposit insurance.

Normally, we might expect prices to fall if reserves are (known to be) insufficient because the market will price for this loss, those holding cash will have extra value. People trust that the bank deposits will remain valuable to the government, or at least they do not concern themselves with the benefits of physical cash in a scenario involving the failure of the banking system, they don’t care about the solvency of the banking system. The level of a bank’s reserves would be more important to customers in a free market, (without deposit insurance) Frb would be more difficult.

Fractional-reserve banking should be illegal if counterfeiting is illegal

It's weird that the government doesn't make inflationary banking illegal, there is no reason to allow banks to do it.

The government benefits from the existence of a 'stable' banking system, but if it is not allowed to crash endless inflation will result. If indebted companies are not allowed to crash, and continue to issue new debt, this will increase the liabilities for the taxpayer, more and more people will be owed money by the government. The deposit guarantee makes private debt public, if everyone has deposit insurance then no one will need to worry about paying for anything.

There is no need to have representative constituencies

The problem with having political constituencies is that it reduces (delegates) the application of power from the national level to the local level. We are prevented from influencing national issues due to the mediation of the politician, who votes as our representative.

We don't want to be restricted to only having one voice in this way.

With Fptp we are forced to join a political team

There is no reason a government should be allowed to have control if they have not been elected fairly.

With proportional representation, to vote for a party of big government is an active choice because there are parties which will offer social liberalism without big government. Under Fptp we have no choice but to vote for the party of big government if we don't like the centre-right party, and consequently we are forced to vote for things we don't like. With PR we can vote for the precise amount of oppression (perhaps justified, as might be the case with issues to do with crime) that we would like and no more.

It would be best not to have elections

Elections get in the way of the natural order of things. If we simply leave things alone they will work out for the best, it (nothing) cannot be improved upon.

There is no reason for a bank not to give people free accounts

The government is not the only institution which can increase the money supply.

There is no reason (for the government) not to allow the banks to simply increase deposits without the customer taking out a loan.

It's easier to let other people earn your money for you

The ambition of a socialist is to get into power which allows the stealing to happen, they share the proceeds among themselves. They are not your friend it is a lie, the little people must earn their own money so then it makes sense that everyone does.

It is better not to have deposit insurance

No customer of a bank has the right to receive free deposit insurance from other taxpayers.

If banks are allowed to have deposit insurance there is nothing to prevent them from selling their reserves, we can see that this does not trigger a response from the customers. Consequently (if deposit insurance exists) there is no reason for a customer to care whether the bank is solvent or has suitable reserves.

If customers of a bank are not concerned as to its solvency (and they will not withdraw their deposits) this may lead to the requirement for a monetisation of the excess bank credit, if the bank spends the reserves. If banks are allowed to hold insufficient reserves then monetisation is required for everyone to get their money back. There is no (beneficial) reason for banks to be allowed to hold insufficient reserves, if they have deposit insurance. Since banks have deposit insurance they should be required to keep full reserves, it is wrong that spending the cash reserves is not a crime. Spending money that belongs to other people is a crime (of theft) whether or not we are a bank and it has been deposited with us. When people make a deposit in a bank they are purchasing security services they do not gift to the bank their assets in the expectation that the government will provide (compensating) insurance. The banks have no right to spend the money that has been deposited with them, on the contrary they have a duty and a responsibility to look after it and keep it safe.

But we might argue that ownership of the assets has been transferred in the act of making a deposit...

If someone gives you something to look after and you sell it (for example some food that has been eaten by the banker) no crime has been committed, no aggressive force has been used. An appropriate response is disappointment but nothing more. It is not the fault of the taxpayer that this has happened it is the customer who must normally suffer the consequences, unfortunately. Deposit insurance protects profligate customers from losing out if their banks fail. It is not the fault of my neighbour if I have chosen to use a disreputable bank, but with deposit insurance they will suffer. It is wrong to punish everyone for the mistake of bank customers in trusting an insolvent bank. If everyone used reliable banks there would be no need for deposit insurance.

The presence of government may be viewed as a precautionary measure in case intervention is needed

Assuming the 'left' will generally attempt to attack freedom and capitalism, for the benefit of the government, whereas the 'right' will leave it alone (as with the laissez faire philosophy) government might still be tolerated on a moral basis. It might not be such a bad idea to have a government with the legal authority to intervene in the markets, and so then government is tolerated for this reason. If you think the 'market' should be left alone then it is prudent to vote for the 'right wing' anti-authoritarian laissez faire (liberal) party.

The government can be retained within a moral framework as a precaution against authoritarian intervention being required, and no one being there to provide it.

We have no right to vote

The danger of democracy is that people seek to immunise their actions from prosecution, we seek to make something which is normally illegal, tolerated by the courts. In normal criminal justice until the crime is perpetrated, nothing happens. Under democracy people try to make sure that what they plan to do will not be punished by the courts beforehand. But there is no special case for the government. If someone has done a crime (and you seek to retaliate) then there is no requirement to seek the permission of the courts beforehand, you should just do what you plan to do anyway. Democracy gives permission (from the people) to the state to be aggressive. It is not a crime for ordinary people to take an opinion poll but the state is different and to remove it (elections) would be to expose the difference between the state and an ordinary citizen, in legal terms.

If democracy is by definition a mechanism whereby the state seeks permission for its actions (and is not merely an opinion poll) then we can say that it makes no difference that a government is popular with the electorate, we still reject the violence. It is still wrong to persecute a minority even if we have been given permission to do so by the majority. A crime is still a crime even if other people don't mind. No one should be allowed to vote.

Proportional Representation would allow more parties and hence viewpoints to be heard

If there is a reason to have a parliament it is so that decisions are made by more than one person, the solitary leader. If this is not preferable we can select a single ruler, but we do not. So then, the ideal type of voting system will be one whereby a diversity of views is given.

Assuming people are loyal to their party affiliation, Fptp negates the advantage of having a parliament in the first place because the diversity of views provided by the parliament (having more than one member) is removed. It is only if representation is more proportionate that there is any point in having a parliament. PR allows a diversity of views to be present in parliament, it allows more than just the main parties to be represented. Fptp reduces the range of views heard to only those of the dominant parties.

Only if someone is an obstruction to someone else are they in the wrong

If we are not in the way of others than we are doing nothing wrong. We have a right to complain about the actions of others only if they obstruct us in some manner.

Asset price inflation is not evidence of the creation of wealth

Without deposit insurance it would be more difficult for people to get loans because banks would be reluctant to lend, due to the legitimate expectations of customers with deposit accounts. Cheap credit is easy to acquire because of inflationary banking. In a free market it would not be possible for a large proportion of the market to gain assets with borrowed money. In a free market houses would be cheaper.

The ordinary taxpayer is not liable for bank debts

If banks don't have enough money for their depositors they should be allowed to fail, it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to help, there is no reason to promise to protect the banks. It is a violation of natural rights to make taxpayers liable for bank debts, deposit insurance is a myth, we have no obligation to pay bank debts.

There is no reason why banks need to be part of the state

If banks are protected from failing then bank credit will have artificial value and inflation will result. It is a contradiction that a bank should be prevented from failing and to take private profits, no free market company is too big to fail. No bank is allowed to fail if it has deposit insurance, unlike every other business. There is no reason for banks to be part of the state, free market banking is possible.

There is no reason to oppose the introduction of proportional representation

To 'vote' is not a positive, selective act we are rejecting the majority of candidates which have been offered. If we have only one 'vote' we are able to exclude from our rejection only one candidate and reject everyone else. Given that, under Fptp there is only a single winning candidate it is useless to exclude from our rejection someone with very little chance of doing well anyway. We might as well 'exclude from our rejection' someone who might do well (from one of the leading parties) if we want to influence the outcome. If more than one candidate is able to go through this means that we can assume a handful of popular candidates will do well and that we can influence the result for less mainstream parties. More people are allowed through the gate meaning that our vote is not well used if we vote for a candidate which is likely to go through anyway so a vote for a less well known party has a chance of success. With only one winning candidate it is only worthwhile choosing between parties that are expected to do well which hands a huge advantage to the established parties. There is no reason to restrict the parliamentary decision-making process to only two or three parties, there is no loss in broadening it out and enabling other voices to be heard. There is no reason to oppose the implementation of proportional representation.

Proportional representation better enables people to protect themselves from the government

If governments have the right to take taxes from people then they should make sure to hold fair elections. It is only because governments can be aggressive that we care about how they are elected. Fptp does not give people sufficient chance to reject a bad candidate or party, proportionality provides protection.

A citizen's dividend would be better than to receive public services

If redistribution of wealth is justified (due to the imbalances in existing property ownership) then it should be given directly to the poor and not spent on public services, which are inefficient.

To prevent inflation the banks should be prevented from reloaning customer deposits if there is a fiat currency

Fractional-reserve banking (Frb) is no more than the ability of banks to reloan deposits. If it is justified to prevent Frb on the grounds that, with a fiat currency, inflation will result, then reloaning deposits must be illegal. If there is coercion and a fiat economy, we must prevent banks from reloaning deposits if we would like to avoid the consequences of inflation.

If coercion exists Fractional-reserve banking should be illegal so that fiat currencies maintain their integrity

There are arguments to say that a Government should make Fractional-reserve banking (Frb) illegal.

If there is no Government Frb presents no problem because we have a free market in currencies and neither does deposit insurance exist. Governments often choose to bail out failed banks which supports and maintains Frb, which is why it is prudent to assume that any Government will always support Frb and provide deposit insurance. There is no point making a law against the Government (a constitution) to outlaw deposit insurance because the Government can ignore any law. Given that Government have a propensity to bail out and protect failed banks it is best to prevent their expansion by making Frb illegal. If there is a Government Frb should be illegal otherwise the currency will eventually, over time, be destroyed. To protect the currency, Fractional-reserve banking should be illegal, it should be illegal to repeatedly lend customer deposits within the context of a fiat (imposed currency) economy.

It is inconsistent not to extend the advantage of deposit insurance to other firms

The existence of deposit insurance in banking means reserves are irrelevant, as far as solvency is concerned. It is still helpful to have reserves so that actual cash loans can be issued and demands for cash can be met as they fall due, for liquidity, but there is no need (for reserves) from a 'balance sheet' solvency perspective. The value of bank receipts (trading at par with cash) is unaltered by the quantity of reserves held by the bank, even customers who are aware of the discrepancy don't care (have no reason to care) because of deposit insurance, so in this respect the high value of bank credit is not explained by ignorance. If bank deposits are insured it means that the Government would be a hypocrite to refuse bank receipts to settle a debt. There is no reason to give banks deposit insurance and there is no reason for the State to protect depositors of fraudulent or profligate banks.

The Government punishes people who do not turn over a sufficient (in the eyes of themselves) quantity of cash. If the Government will too (as well) accept bank receipts then automatically they will have value since they can be used instead. Fiat currencies, in their nature, are protection money. People don't care about the intrinsic merits of owning either cash or credit because it is not for themselves that they value it, but for the Government. Only if the Government eventually will (might) come to express a preference will there be a reason to differentiate. It only matters if the banks are insolvent if the Government cares about this fact, since the banks are insured by the Government, in reality people value neither cash nor bank credit. It is not a contradiction for a normal person (does not contradict their self-ownership) that the banks are insured by the Government because it doesn't make sense that taxes are owed to the Government either, in the first place. Deposit insurance is stupid but not surprising, we do not always complain if the despot tyrant chooses to pardon others, in this case the banks. But it is inconsistent to give banks this advantage and not to extend it to others, or everyone.

Communism is a crazy idea

Everyone is nuts to think that communism is a good idea.

It makes no sense to have allowed Fractional-reserve banking

It makes no sense for the central bank to have allowed fractional-reserve banking because this results in inflation.