The problems in banking are caused by the government

If the reason for the existence and value of fiat currencies is not taxation then the reason (for its value) is none other than arbitrary fashion. If that is the case then the only reason to value (unbacked) bank credit is not taxation but knowledge of the ability of the government to make good on all promises, by printing more money.

Whether the reason for the value of fiat is taxation or simply fashion, it is still true that the government guarantee of bank deposits is meaningful in either case. It is for no other reason than the government guarantee that the bank deposits are valued, not because the banks are trusted, but because the government is trusted. Bank deposits are valuable or the government have lied. If the government did not want to make bank deposits valuable, there is no method by which the banks could make them valuable, they are too far into a bankruptcy situation to recover their losses. Without the government the banks would be bankrupt, it is only government support which keeps them from failing altogether. Without the government there would be no serious problem with banking.

There is no forfeit for banks if they increase the money supply

Money is not printed exclusively by the government. Commercial banks are allowed to print money. The shocking part (as far as ethics is concerned) is not strictly that banks print money (it is not the fault of the banks, that they do this) more alarming is that they are permitted to do this by the government.

Money is no more than a government promise and since bank liabilities are guaranteed by the government then banks are allowed to print money.

The law should be immune from elections

The outcome of an election is often the excuse given for tyranny. But only a bigot would think that an opinion being popular verifies it.

Elections are often a tool used to punish those who anger us by contradicting us. But we have no right to such a tool. Elections are the crime of using force of popularity to impose rules which would otherwise not stand.

Eventually all fiat currencies will disappear

Eventually under a fiat currency regime the government will not be able to create sufficient demand for it to retain value, since it loses value over time and is inherently worthless.

Fiat currencies will eventually lose value entirely if they continue to be inflated. People will ‘move on’ and decide to use something else as a store of value, if they even need a store of value.

Banks should not be permitted to trade if they are insolvent

Only institutions that do not have credit guaranteed by the taxpayer should have the right to lend customer deposits. If the credit is guaranteed by the taxpayer all assets of the company should be seized and the firm wound down and closed.

A company that has credit guaranteed by the taxpayer should not be permitted to continue as a going concern.

Banks should not be allowed to lend deposits by the government

With state-endorsed Frb the bank can claim that to retain the customer deposits was never part of the contract, due to the deposit insurance. It is true, however, that we are not given back the same note which was deposited in the first place. When a bank relends the money other people get the advantage of it, often without our permission.

Banks should not be given permission to relend customer’s deposits.

Bad firms must be allowed to fail otherwise inflation will happen

Nothing more is required than deposit insurance to enable banks to inflate the money supply, fiat money is nothing more than state credit. We value fiat currency out of necessity not infatuation, it has value for no other reason than the state. Only if the currency is valued for its own sake (like a commodity currency) would the deposit insurance (of banks) be meaningless, or not a threat, because it could not be validated by the state, they would be unable to pay and so money would not be created.

Deposit insurance is not benign (immaterial to the money supply) because the state is feared. The money supply is not independent of deposit insurance. Sound money relies upon bad firms (and their credit) being allowed to fail. Inflation happens when bad firms are not allowed to fail.

If bank deposits are a form of money then we have full reserve banking

If commercial banks in a fiat economy which have deposit insurance are considered to be ‘printing money’ when they make a loan then it is not true that Frb exists. Frb is indicative of a situation in which banks might not have sufficient reserves to be solvent. If bank deposits are themselves a form of money then it is impossible for banks not to have sufficient funds, for the deposits themselves are (a form of) cash. Frb would exist only if banks are not able to increase the money supply. Deposit insurance (in a fiat economy, necessarily, to be meaningful) means that banks have full reserves. Since banks cannot be insolvent Frb does not exist.

AV is bad for parties which do not have broad support

The voting system which encourages the most amount of tactical voting is Fptp, but even under this system the main parties do not collect the entirety of the vote, some goes to minority parties.

With the Alternative Vote it is likely that the winning party will require at least half of the votes cast and the outcome will (likely) be decided by minority party voters. They will no longer be excluded from the process. A party which is divisive (one which would never receive the support of some voters, being cultish) will suffer whereas a more consensual type of party will do well. AV is bad for parties which are cultish and divisive because they will not receive the lower preferences of voters who reject each of the main parties.

There can be no valid government

For the authorities to claim have the consent of the governed is a lie and an oxymoron, there is no consent of the governed, by definition.

If the governed have no land it makes sense that they would withdraw their consent from the government, and since (it is claimed) we can only legitimately govern with consent then we have no right to govern over the landless. We can presume consent exists only from those who have a vested interest in our success, and they would be landowners, protecting their own interests. The landless do not have an interest in the success of the state. We can presume consent (from the group) for our actions exists if we are protecting a shared property, such as a town or a street, but not if what we are protecting is owned by only an individual. Consent can only logically be allied to (vested) interests, so then we can presume that consent will be withdrawn if our (personal) interests are not being protected. There is consent only if there is a group, so (civic) consent is impossible (the opinion of the group is a fictional justification for the use of force) and then if we are able to govern only with the consent of the governed this too (as a consequence) is illegitimate because we have no valid consent, in this context.

If to be valid the government requires the consent of the governed only the opinion of one person is sufficient to contradict this clause. If the government has the natural support of everyone then there is no requirement for it and it does not exist in any meaningful sense. If there is no antagonism within government then it is meaningless. It is impossible for the government to have any meaningful consent (for the use of force) from individuals and so it (government) is always imposed illegitimately.

All government is illegitimate, all illegitimate acts are an act of the state.

For the government to default on the debt will usually improve the economy

When a government gets heavily into debt the repayments of interest and principal can become onerous. To make the repayments possible, and not further increase the debt, sometimes governments will raise taxes which places a heavy burden on production and the economy. In order to alleviate this problem governments are able to default on the debt, instead, so that they are no longer required to make the repayments.

AV doesn’t even allow voters a free choice with their first preference

It would be easy to presume that a change from Fptp to AV would result in ‘more fair’ elections, due to the process itself being more complex. Because Fptp is not a proportional system voters are inclined to vote tactically. We know (or at least it is assumed here) that AV requires voters to be careful (somewhat tactical) with their 2nd preference because after that there is every chance that no lower preferences will be considered.

When it comes to our 1st preference, since a candidate reaching half of the total votes cast will be chosen regardless, then even if our 1st preference went against them we could not have prevented their victory so, the argument goes, we have a free choice under AV for our first preference. It is true that nothing can be done to prevent a victory for a candidate achieving more than half of 1st preferences but we might be concerned about a situation in which someone gets almost half. We are then concerned that our 2nd preference comes into play earlier than that of other voters and (for that reason) we would not want to vote for someone who is likely to do (fairly) well in the 1st round. Voting for a fairly popular party in the 1st round, under AV, is to take the risk that the 2nd preferences of other voters will be taken into account prior to ours. We do not want to vote (1st preference) for a genuine rival of our tactical (Fptp) choice because our 2nd preference might never be counted, it might be useful (for the sake of appearances and to send a message) to ‘risk’ giving our 1st preference to a very minor party but only if we are confident that our 2nd preference will come into play fairly immediately. Voting for a moderately popular candidate with our 1st preference risks not having our 2nd preference considered.

We should get rid of deposit insurance in the present

The provision of deposit insurance should be provisional on banks not inflating the money supply. There is no reason not to prevent the banks from inflating the money supply by threatening to remove the insurance of their deposits. The government should threaten to remove it (the deposit insurance) from bad banks, whilst continuing to provide it for existing deposits, it should not guarantee any new deposits.

It doesn’t make sense that we are continuing to guarantee these bad banks, if people hate them so much, (we should) let them fail (not only in the past but now). Perhaps ‘we’ should take away deposit insurance.

If they have deposit insurance the banks should be forced to keep full reserves

Frb enables multiple people to spend the same money.

Normally when money is spent it is lost to the person who spent it, but with the present system of banking the money returns to the bank which is then able to spend it again, usually buying a loan. The bank does not need (they are not required) to keep the money in reserve and so there is nothing to prevent it being loaned out multiple times. The banks would not need to be bailed out if they were mandated to keep sufficient (full) reserves.

Frb unfairly hurts people with savings

With a Fractional-reserve banking system the borrower gets (the advantage of being able) to spend the money but everyone suffers from the inflation. People with savings in the fiat currency lose out when a new loan is issued but they do not have any advantage, or the ability to be consulted and object.