There is no reason to allow banks to increase the supply of state credit

To describe a lending institution as a bank is a deception, if a bank spends deposits it is not a bank.

There is no reason to allow insured banks to make loans

It doesn’t make sense to allow frac res banking, particularly as a consequence of fiat currencies and deposit insurance.

Minority rule would prevent the instability of pr

It is possible to organise a voting system with the stability of fptp but also with the advantages of proportional representation, being a lack of (the requirement for) tactical voting.

Once the election has occurred each party (represented by their leader) elects which of the emerging coalitions to support, in accordance with their share of the popular vote. It doesn’t matter, at this stage, which electoral system has been chosen provided we are able to know the popular totals. The winning coalition will gain power, but with all voting and legislative power transferred to the majority (largest) party within the coalition. This party can then govern for the full term with or without the loyalty of their coalition partners. Such a system would mean that voters can choose which, from the left and right flanks of politics, particular party they support and vote for them in the knowledge that they will still be preventing a more feared party succeed, there is no need for tactical voting of this sort. For this reason it is much easier for smaller parties to eventually usurp the more dominant, established groups. The winning coalition cannot resign unless the controlling party agrees.

People have no right to have elections

Elections are not valid unless they are proportional

Banks have no right to inflate the currency

No one should have a banking license. We have no right to inflate the money supply. Since we have no choice but to use the established currency, only the state should be able to cause inflation.

The present voting system is unfair

The present system of voting doesn’t enable people to vote for whomever they want. Only having one winner per seat means most votes will be wasted if they are not cast for one of the leading candidates.

An unfair voting system is a form of communism

The problem with fptp is that both parties are useless

If one of the main parties is acceptable then there is nothing wrong with fptp.

FPTP is tedious and boring

The present voting system of fptp is not liberal, there is no democratic pressure on the main parties to change. A fair system is less boring.

Bigger constituencies would improve the electoral process

Under pr there would be a democratic mandate to do nothing.

A lack of democracy is socialism

If we don’t change the system then people can only vote for one of the main parties. Changing the system would give people more freedom.

No voting system is democratic unless it is proportional

Democracy requires proportionality, in the same way that a monarchy is not democratic, disproportionate votes are not democratic either. A system of voting can be said to be democratic only if it is proportional.

Banks print money

If bank credit is no less valuable than cash then banks print money.

Banks are allowed to print money

To have deposit insurance is the same as being allowed to print money.

Frac res banking is not ever free market

A free market would be better than the present system of frac res banking.

If we had fracrb that would enable banks to print money

If we have fracrb then (inevitably) banks can print money. If banks can’t print money then we don’t have fracrb, we (might) have fullrb.

Liberals do not support fptp

It is a contradiction to be for small government and against pr.

The voting system might be improved

Anarchy is better than democracy.


It is a contradiction for anyone in government (an authoritarian) to claim that the voting system (used in the past) is wrong. If such an authoritarian is liberally minded then the voting system has not been an impediment to liberalism, and there is no need to change, the people have been wise in spite of the voting system. And there is no reason to think the people will not continue to be sufficiently wise into the future. If the authoritarian is socialist then they have already got what they want under the fptp (socialist) system, so there is no need to change unless pr leads to more socialism, fptp is already a good system for them. A liberal (authoritarian) would perhaps want to move to pr... but the fact of their already being in power suggests that the voting system is not a problem, only that it might be improved, made even better.

The state is nothing more than the voting system

The state is the voting system, the state is nothing more than the voting system.

Fptp is not anarchy

Democracy is designed to protect us from the state, more democracy more protection.
Fptp does not provide sufficient choice and is unfair.

Fair voting introduces competition to each side

Under pr there would no need to get frustrated with your party, you would simply be able to vote for someone else. Majoritarian voting is like having a dictatorship on either side. As a centre-right (or centre-left) voter, we must tolerate the Republicans (or the Democrats) even if we dislike them. There is no easy (democratic) means to influence our party of choice, other than to complain.

It is possible to still vote centre-right (or centre-left) and have our vote matter, under pr.


With fptp there is no competition on either side.

Majoritarian voting gives all the power to the party leaders

A fair system of voting is better for MPs (and not their leader) as they would have more influence, in this system.

Under fptp MPs have no influence, it is like winning the lottery for the party (party leader) which gets elected... they can do almost whatever they want. Having many MPs (under pr) means that any legislation has to meet the approval of a majority in the chamber. The present system is presidential. With pr MPs would be in a better position to constrain parliament, under fptp they cannot reject bad laws because they are (have been) given no power.

There is nothing wrong with advocating pr

Yes.

The manner in which the votes are counted is very relevant

The manner in which the votes are counted is relevant.

There is no reason to fear pr

There is no reason to advocate fptp unless there is a fear of democracy. The alternative to democracy (which is pr) is worse. Unfair votes (fptp) is for people who are scared of democracy.

Fair votes means equal votes

If all votes should be counted equally then it makes sense to have pr. Unfair voting means that votes do not count equally.

Fptp is not good even for supporters of the incumbent parties

Fptp is not good for anyone, not even those people who support the leading parties. Anyone that supports one of the leading parties would still have that option under pr but they would also have other, perhaps more preferable, options.

Fptp is not proportional

Simple fptp does not result in proportional outcomes.

Banks do not print money

Frb is impossible so it is ridiculous to ‘trust’ the banks.

There is nothing wrong with advocating full reserve banking

Yes.

There is no limit on money supply inflation

There is no money supply ceiling.

We do not know whether bank credit is money

If bank credit is not money then there will be a crash of the banking sector. If there is no chance of a banking collapse then bank credit is money.

Most people are libertarian

For people that like government fptp is not a problem, these people will be able to choose the best of the two main parties. It is only a problem if you don’t like government.

Fair votes would enable us to get rid of the government.

Advocates of fptp do not support democracy

If democracy is good then pr would be better than fptp because it offers more democracy. If the leading parties share a tyranny then fptp offers no solution for the voter. A democrat will support full pr.

The political class do not fear fptp

True.

Fptp is not democracy

An electoral system in which only one of the two main parties can win is not democracy.

Only full reserve banking is banking

If a bank (deliberately) does not have full reserves it cannot be called a bank.

There will be a default of the banking system

The banking system will collapse which means banks do not increase the money supply (permanently) and only base money is relevant. Banks cause (temporary) price inflation because people are deceived into thinking they have money, the market does not yet differentiate. The market has not yet realised that the banks are insolvent.

Deposit insurance means that frb should be illegal

Banks have no right to lend out deposits because of deposit insurance. Banks would have a right to make loans in a free market.

PR is anarchy

Fair votes is anarchy. Under fair votes there is no state because everyone is appropriately (proportionally) represented. PR is statelessness.

There is no reason for a referendum on pr

There is no reason to have a referendum on reform of the voting system. People should be forced to have pr (in replacement of the existing unfair system, only) whether they like it or not.

Fptp makes the government more powerful

The only reason to complain about proportionality would be (if you are) someone with a vested interest in the main parties. The main parties are terrified of democracy. Proportionality would weaken government.

There is nothing to like about fptp

With fair votes politicians would need to be more concerned about peoples’ problems.

Socialism is selfish

Socialism is not generous. People who are generous will allow others to live their lives as they wish. The state is selfish.

Growth does not always require trade

GDP measures trade and transactions not growth.

GDP is meaningless (not only because it includes government spending but also) because it measures only transactions, not wealth created personally. If something is not sold, but consumed by the creator of it then it will not count.

Growth can happen without trade.

The state is a false concept

The state has no right to exist. We have an exclusive right to our own labour.

Fptp is illegitimate

Fptp is not a legitimate (form of) electoral system.

Bank profits belong to the taxpayer if their liabilities do

No bank should be able to make private profits if its liabilities are public. There is no problem with private profits if the liabilities are (also) private.

A good bank doesn’t need deposit insurance

Solvent banks have no need for deposit insurance. The presence of deposit insurance contradicts the notion that banks are reliable and trustworthy.

Fiat currencies ruin capitalism

Capitalism doesn’t work if people are using a fiat currency because money can be ‘earned’ not only through work but also inflation.

Bank credit is like money in that it causes price inflation

The banking system is the primary cause of inflation in the economy. Nothing else but banking significantly causes inflation to the same degree.

Democracy rests on false assumptions

We have no right to make choices for other people, only ourselves. By necessity, any democratic system relies on the assumption that this right exists, so democracy rests on false assumptions. We have a right to make choices only for ourselves. No one has the right to make choices for others.

The government has no right to exist

Simply being named the government (by yourself or by others) makes no difference to the morality of crimes. Crimes are still bad even if you are the government.

Most people don’t understand how the banks cause inflation

Banking is not widely understood.

The left are not enlightened

The left are bigots, they are prejudiced against the freedoms of the individual. Socialism is bigotry. Socialism is the antithesis of freedom.