Drug prohibition is a violation of natural rights

Prohibition of drugs is a crime whether or not the drugs concerned are harmful. It doesn't mater if the drugs are harmful we have a natural right to consume what we wish to. No one and no state has the authority to prevent us from taking drugs.

No currency has deposit insurance

The nature of guaranteed banking is that there is little incentive for the bank to hold full reserves. Often the bank will gamble or lend the money it has received in the hope of making extra profits. If the bank loses (on the bet) the original customer will not lose their money because it is guaranteed by the state. The bank can buy assets such as land and if the money is returned to the bank it is able to repeat this process and buy more land. If this continues the bank is able to acquire a significant amount of land and end up heavily in debt... because of the government guarantee. The bank is able to hold on to its assets in spite of its insolvency. Deposit insurance enables the bank to issue its own currency and acquire assets such as land. This makes it very difficult for the rest of the economy to retain assets since the bank is able to 'counterfeit' the currency and buy things. The problem with legalised counterfeiting is that it makes it difficult for ordinary people to hold and retain their assets. It is difficult to compete in the market-place with an agent which is able to print money... so it is clear that the banks are able to buy almost everything they want. Money is no object if you are a counterfeiter. Because (as far as markets are concerned) wealth is not infinite counterfeiters are responsible in part for the poverty of others. Counterfeiters are destroying the means by which the rest of the economy is able to acquire assets. For our money to have value requires that other people are not infinitely rich. If other people can get out of their poverty by counterfeiting this means that the rest of the economy is less wealthy. In a market our wealth depends on the (relative) poverty of others which means that (in a market) counterfeiters destroy the wealth of everyone else. Markets require everyone to be relatively poor if someone is able to counterfeit the currency and buy all the assets then there is no market. If money is not scarce it fails to be a value item of exchange. There is no reason the banks couldn't simply issue currency to themselves and purchase all the assets in the economy. A sound currency requires that there is no deposit insurance. Money needs to be scarce and so if a currency (and its banking system) has deposit insurance then it ceases to be a valid form of money. Money is not money if it has deposit insurance.

Fiat circulates because people do not value it

We know from Gresham's law that bad money drives out good from circulation... that if people are able to pay for their purchases with a form of money which is overvalued then that money will flood into circulation. People will hoard the undervalued (or real) money and spend the overvalued (or fake) money into circulation so that they retain what they think is the more valuable form of money. This partly explains why fiat money is the predominant form of money in circulation today. We know that people do not truly value fiat money otherwise it would be hoarded and not circulate so widely. The fact that fiat money is in use... somewhat paradoxically... shows that it is both valued and not valued. (It is less valued than the other currencies.) People value the currencies they do not spend more than they value fiat money. Fiat currencies are valued the least of all the currencies and we know this because they circulate widely in the economy. People do not spend what they value.

Banks can print fiat currencies

Where there is deposit insurance fiat currencies enable banks to inflate the currency. The reason for this is that there is no economic reason for banks to not issue more credit than they have reserves. The lack of deposit insurance in a fiat regime means that banks can't cause inflation... but if there is deposit insurance then fiat currencies enable banks to cause inflation. If we assume that governments will generally prevent a bank run if they can then fiat alone is enough to enable banks to cause inflation. Fiat currencies mean not only the government but banks also can increase the money supply unless the government allows banks to fail which is unlikely. The only way to stop banks printing money (if there is a fiat currency) is for the government to let them fail... which makes fiat currencies very dangerous to the economy since the government is inclined to protect the banks. Fiat currencies are dangerous because the government likes to protect the banks. Fiat currencies enable banks to cause inflation because of deposit insurance.

Counterfeiting is no worse than bank inflation

It is inconsistent that unsound banking (defined by the existence of deposit insurance with no prohibition of fractional-reserve banking) is not illegal. It should be illegal for any institution other than the government to cause inflation and print money... otherwise those who do not have this ability are at an unfair disadvantage. It's not fair if there is a fiat currency and some people (non-banks) are not able to print money as the banks are. The present system is inconsistent and unfair. It's strange that banks are not also prohibited from printing money and that only they are allowed to increase the money supply. Why only them and not others? If there is a reason to prevent counterfeiting then there is also a reason to prohibit unsound banking and make it illegal. If counterfeiting is bad then so too is unsound banking. There is no reason for banks to be an exception to this rule. It's fine to let the banks issue currency provided everyone else can do the same... otherwise there is an inequality. Only if counterfeiting ceases to be a crime is it not also a crime for banks to increase the money supply. If counterfeiting is a crime then so too is fractional-reserve banking in its current form. If counterfeiting is a crime then so too is fractional-reserve banking as it exists today.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of taxation

In many ways we can think of the ability to increase the money supply (if there is a fiat currency) as a form of taxation. If there is a fiat currency then all inflation of that currency acts as a tax because it is a cost to the people who are using that currency... and everyone is using the currency otherwise it would not be an effective fiat currency. Because everyone is forced to use a fiat currency any inflation of that currency is a tax on everyone in the economy. When banks have deposit insurance (and have permission to increase the money supply) then they too are able to force a form of taxation onto the people. Banks can tax people if they have deposit insurance. (And are able to increase the money supply.) Fractional-reserve banking (frb) cannot exist in the free market because it is prevented by bank runs so we can say that frb is always a tax on the people.

Social mobility requires sound money

People can get out of poverty if the currency they use (and earn) retains its value. If there is constant inflation by fractional-reserve banking or some other source then the 'ordinary' person will forever be consigned to poverty. The reason for this is that if inflation is easily possible for some people then the savings of the rest of the population (however they are held) will always be worthless. Money earned quickly loses it value if there is inflation so people cannot establish long-term wealth they can only look after themselves in the short term. This means that only people who are willing to inflate or get into debt are able to make a significant purchase such as a house. Sound money is required for people to be able to get out of poverty. Without sound money people can only ever meet their day-to-day costs and never establish any meaningful form of wealth. Except (in a system of fractional-reserve banking) if they get heavily into debt and manage to pay that off... otherwise social mobility requires sound money.

Intelligent people are anarchists

Deposit insurance means that banks can't fail but in a Capitalist system... particularly if there is a fiat currency it is vital that banks (and all organisations) can fail. If banks cannot fail there will be inflation which is bad for savers and poor people who have no means of storing wealth other than cash. Deposit insurance (and inflation) is bad for poor people which means it should not happen. The government has no legitimacy other than to help poor people but deposit insurance is bad for poor people so the government should not do it. Inflation is one of the main causes of poverty and it is caused by the government. The government claims to help poor people but (in providing deposit insurance) it does the opposite. The existence of deposit insurance shows that government does the opposite of what it claims. If the government is good there would be no deposit insurance. Poverty is largely caused by statists who do not know that inflation is caused by deposit insurance. People who fight poverty cannot be both knowledgeable and statists because it is the state which causes poverty with deposit insurance. People who fight poverty must either be anarchists or stupid. Intelligent people are anarchists.

Frb is is temporary like the government

To be in the mafia is to be in a weak and vulnerable position because your income is derived from violence. Even if there are no direct repercussions you are still vulnerable because your practice is inconsistent. It is inconsistent to use violence to get what you want because you are being authoritarian and not recognising other people as equals. Something which is inconsistent is temporary... only consistent things will survive which means that eventually the mafia will not survive and is temporary. Because the mafia is temporary this means fractional-reserve banking is also temporary because it relies for its existence on deposit insurance which comes from the government. Governments are temporary so fractional-reserve banking is temporary.

Marxist banking will destroy the government

It will be difficult for the government to survive the emergence and appeasement of fractional-reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking will destroy the currency in one of two ways: either the 'private' liabilities will be too large for the government to absorb and there will be a collapse of the banking and financial system. (Which will be hard for the government to survive.) Or the government will absorb the balance sheet of the banks onto its own balance sheet in defiance of the people and again the government will fail. In either case banking (in its present Marxist form) will destroy the government.

Taxation is the problem with banking

The government keeps bailing out the banks. Without the government the banks could fail and the currency would be intact. The government destroys the currency by bailing out the banks.

There should be no deposit insurance

Not only are we taxed but also the government lets 'banks' increase the money supply which means we can't save and the incentive to earn money is reduced. If we are taxed (if there is a government) then there should be no deposit insurance.

The problem with banking is government

Banks can fail if there is no state... it is only because of the state and deposit insurance that banks cannot fail. Banks can only print money because of the state. It is the state which allows banks to cause inflation. In a stateless society banks would not be able to cause inflation.

Blind people are in control of the banking system

Without deposit insurance it is possible for a fiat currency to act as a form of sound money... in so far as it is possible for it not to be inflated. There can be sound money if there is no deposit insurance. There can't be sound money if there is deposit insurance. Those who are critical of the banking system and seek to reform it are advocates of sound money. People who defend the (present) banking system are opposed to sound money. If sound money is normal and sensible (which is consistent with money being a store of value) then to be opposed to bank reform (or blind to the problems of banking) is to be not sensible but insane. Opponents of bank reform fall into one of two categories... those who see that banks 'print money' and do not object to this (a difficult position to defend) and secondly those who do not see this. People who are blind to bank inflation waste the time of those who see it. Truthful people do not waste the time of other people. It is insane to deny what is true even if we are blind and cannot see it. (Being 'blind' is not an excuse.) Even blind people are insane and should defer to (or at least not obstruct) those who can see.

To protect the banks is a form of insanity

The position of those who defend the status quo of banking is that it is natural that banks cannot fail. People who defend banks claim that they should not be allowed to fail... they deny that banks should ever fail even if they make (have made) bad investments. These people are wrong... it is normal that banks are able to fail. There is no reason for banks to be protected and so to protect them is to do something unnecessary and stupid.

Fractional reserve banking is caused by democracy

Fractional reserve banking would not be possible if not for the consent of the voters. The voters endorse deposit insurance which enables banks to inflate the money supply (fractional reserve banks would fail if not for deposit insurance) and so fractional reserve banking (frb) requires democracy. Without democracy there would be no frb.

People will avoid drugs if they are harmful

There is no need to make harmful drugs illegal... if they do harm (more harm than they do good) then people will not want to take them. People can be relied upon to make the best decisions for thmselves. To make drugs illegal is to deny people the opportunity to experience the benefits of taking drugs which the state does not have a right to do. Drugs should be legal because they might be good.

There is an equivalence between inflation and debt

If people don't want to get into debt then the fractional reserve banking system will not cause harm. The harm caused by the fractional reserve banking system is reliant on people being willing to get into debt. If people refuse the offer of debt then the system will collapse (or at least there will be no further expansion) and there will be proxy sound banking. The problem with the banking system is the willingness of people to get into debt.

The government could prevent inflation but doesn't

The government is not concerned about inflation

The government are either upset that the banking system increases the money supply (in which case they would take action to prevent it... which they have not) or they do not care about it. Assuming the government cares about inflation we can deduce that the government do not want (people and) banks to print money. That being the case it would make more sense for the government to either remove deposit insurance or prohibit bank inflation. If the government does not mandate sound banking then it is either inconsistent or unconcerned about inflation. If the government cares about inflation it should mandate sound banking... to be consistent. The absence of sound banking demonstrates that the government is unconcerned about inflation. The government doesn't care about inflation otherwise there would be (only) sound banking.

Mortgages and loans increase the money supply

People who borrow money from banks with deposit insurance... which are not operating with full reserves... are depriving the rest of the population of value unvoluntarily. Borrowing money (if it increases the money supply) is to steal from your neighbours.

Fiat inflation is a violation of natural rights

We have a right to be protected from inflation by the government. If the government imposes taxation and a fiat currency on the population then they have a right for that currency to serve as a store of value. Inflation is a violation of natural rights if there is a fiat currency imposed on the population. Inflation is theft if there is a fiat currency... fiat currencies are different from store credit or any other form of private credit. The government has a responsibility to be vigilant with inflation and the people have a right to be protected from (not subjected to) it. The people have a right not to be subjected to fiat inflation.

The government doesn't think inflation is bad

There is no contradiction within the banking system because there is no reason it would make sense. (There is no reason for it to be logical.) If people (banks) can print money this is not a contradiction because there is no reason for it to be consistent. If a shop lets people steal its produce this is not a contradiction in itself... even if the shop is unaware that people are stealing from it still there is no contradiction. It is only possible for there to be a contradiction if the shop (the government) disagrees with something that is happening. If the shop objects to the theft then there is potentially a contradiction to be resolved. If the shop is fine with people stealing from it this is a stable condition... where everyone is being consistent.

This is the vulnerability of paper money... either banks or the government itself can print it and there is nothing to be done (no valid complaint). Paper money would be less 'bad' if banks cannot print it but even if just the government can print it paper money is still bad. It makes no sense that the government would let the banks print money (it serves neither the government or the people) but that is not an absolute contradiction only a subjective (in reference to the government) contradiction. If it is good to preserve the currency by preventing private counterfeiting then it would seem consistent to also prevent banks from doing so. Only if inflation is not bad (and the currency is not worth preserving) would it make sense to allow banks to print money.

Anarchists can understand the banking system

Only people who are not the government can see how banking works because to understand banking is to reject the state. To understand banking means that you realise the problems of deposit insurance which means (since it is the government which provides deposit insurance) you reject the government. No government-supporter would allow themselves to understand banking... only anarchists understand banking. To understand banking is to be an anarchist.

The government cannot see how banking works

It's not insane to claim that (some) private people (not only the government) can print money. (It's not insane because this is the reality.) It would perhaps be reasonable to assume that only the government can print money since it is valuable and we are given to believe that this is the case... certainly we are not informed of how the banking system works. We can be forgiven for thinking that only the government prints money. Since this is a reasonable assumption the government has a duty to inform its citizens that the reality is different and those that see that money is printed by banks are correct. The government should inform people that it too is of the opinion that banks print money... and does not object. Since it is illogical for the government to tolerate (private) banks printing money we can deduce that the government (like many other people) is blind to how the system works. It is only a small group of monetary reformers who can see how the system works.

It is not logical that banks can print money

There are no contradictions and everything is logical apart from where banking and deposit insurance is concerned. It would not be logical for lending institutions (banks) to be able to increase the money supply since counterfeiting is illegal. (It would only be logical for the government to be able to print money.) Since we expect money to be valuable (and clearly if it can be printed privately it will cease to be so) then it is natural to expect that no one (apart from the government) can print money. Since money is valuable it would be weird for 'banks' to be able to print it... and yet they can which is seemingly illogical. Everything is logical except for money and the banking sector... at the present time in history.

Only full reserve banks should be insured

If it doesn't prohibit bank lending the government should not give banks deposit insurance. The government should extend deposit insurance only to banks which agree not to make loans... if it should extend deposit insurance at all. If there should be deposit insurance it should be only for full reserve banks. Fractional reserve banks should not be given deposit insurance. There should be no insurance for fractional reserve banks.

Deposit insurance is a mistake because of loans

Deposit insurance should be conditional on banks not being allowed to make loans. If banks are insured by the state and can extend credit then they will be able to increase the money supply and cause inflation. We will not have sound banking if banks with deposit insurance can make loans. If banks can make loans they should not be given deposit insurance... the problem with deposit insurance is that banks can make loans.

People can print money because of the government

The problem for the government of deposit insurance is that it enables a combination of the banks and customers to 'print' money. Fiat money is imposed on the population... it is worthless without the threat of taxation but if banks are guaranteed their credit will have the same value as the base money. If banks are given deposit insurance then their credit-creation rights must be restricted otherwise there will be inflation. The government is responsible for the ability of the banks (and their customers) to inflate the currency. The people (banks and their customers) are able to inflate the currency only because of government deposit insurance and the lack of any prohibition on bank lending. If not for government deposit insurance then things would be fine... it is the fault of the government that the people are able to inflate the currency.

No bank has a banking licence

Banks don't have deposit insurance an institution which cannot fail is part of the state and not a bank. Banks are not part of the state. The government (often) describes part of itself as a bank when it is not and cannot be. All banks can fail. There is nothing wrong with banks... the problem is that there are so few of them... genuine banks (without deposit insurance) are illegal since it is illegal to take deposits without a banking licence (and subsequent insurance). There are no banks if deposit insurance is mandatory.

Deposit insurance should be illegal

Fiat currencies enable bank inflation

The combination of deposit insurance and fiat currency is a problem because it means that government promises (no matter how extreme) can be made whole. Deposit insurance without fiat currency is not such a problem... it is a problem if there is a fiat currency. Fiat currencies make deposit insurance possible.

The government should guarantee only utilities

Deposit insurance is not inevitable... not all governments protect the banking sector. It is possible for the government to allow banks to fail. Whilst the government have a perfect right to guarantee the banking sector (if the government is legitimate) it might not be best to do so. The government have a right to make mistakes and deposit insurance is a mistake. There could be a government which does not protect the banks.

The government should not protect the banks

Just because people might lose deposits is no reason for banks to be protected. If we take this to the (logical) extreme we can easily see a bank cynically extending credit (to a knowing customer) in the expectation that the government will protect the credit. If banks (and their customers) know the government will stand for their credit then the currency itself loses value. For a currency to retain value requires that no institutions (including banks) are guaranteed. Even bank failure should not be prevented by the state. Even banks should be allowed to fail as should all private companies. Protecting banks does not help the economy (debt does not need to be subsidised) and so there is no justification for it. Bank credit does not need to be guaranteed by the government... it is better for everyone if banks can fail. There is no problem with letting banks fail and providing insurance only increases the money supply or increases the gap between perceived money and real money. If bank credit is guaranteed it should be printed or it should be recognised that there is a big gap between perceived and real money. Without monetisation there will be a banking default which will cause price deflation... to avoid this situation the government should make it clear that banks can fail... otherwise there will be an assumption that bank credit is money. If bank credit is not money then banks can fail and this is how it should be. There is nothing wrong with banks failing... it is a natural part of life. It's worse for the government if there is deposit insurance. Deposit insurance makes the government unpopular.

There is no need to guarantee the banking sector

Deposit insurance means that banks (if they are guaranteed) cannot fail... this is a problem not only for people who hold cash but for everyone because banks and their customers can acquire all the assets. If fiat currency is used (which by definition is true otherwise deposit insurance is meaningless) then to guarantee the banks means they can print money and get rich. If they are insured the banks can acquire all the assets... which is not good. It's not good if only banks can buy things. It's good if everyone (including non-banks) can buy things.

Only crimes should be prohibited

As far as drug prohibition is concerned we must assume everyone is peaceful and that drug use has no associated violence. (Often the violence that we do see is a result of there being no legal recourse in the trade.) We deal as far as the law is concerned with the drug-taking in isolation and expect that if any violence arises then that behaviour will be dealt with on its own. We are isolating the drug use itself. Since the drug user is (otherwise) peaceful prohibition can only be for the benefit of the victim... but there is no victim by definition. We cannot hurt ourselves. There is no reason to hurt someone who is not hurting you... so there is no reason for prohibition. It makes no sense to punish someone for their own good. There is no reason to prohibit a non-crime. Only crimes should be prohibited.

The worst kind of banking is fractional reserve banking

The stock market measures inflation not growth

Fractional banking is a bit like money laundering

There is an equivalence between government-guaranteed fractional reserve banking and money laundering. With money laundering money acquired by illegal means (either counterfeiting or crime) can be 'washed' through the banking system. With fractional reserve banking we can consider the private citizen to be the person doing the washing for the bank. When the bank makes a loan and increases the money supply it cannot do so without a customer. The bank requires people to take out loans if it is to cause inflation. Without lenders the money supply remains the same.

We cannot do a crime against ourselves

The contradiction of drug prohibition is that it is based on the assumption that we are not always acting in our own best interest. There is no need to ban things for the benefit of the person who would otherwise do the action. We act in our own best interests. Banning things is only justified if we are doing it to protect someone who is not involved and does not have a choice to participate. If people choose to do something to themselves this is not a crime. We are able to hurt ourselves... by definition self-harm is not harm... as far as the law is concerned. We cannot do a crime against ourselves and so prohibition is a false concept. Crimes cannot be perpetrated against ourselves.

Banks aren't punished for counterfeiting

If part of the economy should have deposit insurance (the banks) then everyone should be protected from failure by the state... there is nothing intrinsically special about the banks. To take deposits confers no special authority or importance. The free market is able to provide (and price) security. The problems of deposit insurance (inflation) are not remedied by restricting its scope to only banks. (Giving it to everyone would not be much worse.) If banks should have it then it should be available for everyone.

The state prefers banks to people

The government has a preference for banks over the people. We know this because banks are guaranteed by the state from failure... bank credit is always as good as state credit (because of deposit insurance) but individuals (and non-bank companies) can fail.

People value something that is printed by banks

Fractional reserve banking enables banks to print money out of thin air... primarily because they have deposit insurance and cannot fail. If fiat currency is used then being protected from failure by the state means your institution can print money. This is true not just of banks but for all of the public sector. The difference with banks is that they are vastly insolvent as distinct from other public services which get funded each year from the government by the taxpayer. Because of deposit insurance banks can print money but this privilege is not extended to the rest of the economy. For this reason it seems strange that people would tolerate the bank-printing of money and not demand change. It makes no sense that people would use a bank-inflated currency.

Deposit insurance is a form of theft

Bailouts are robbery... we can accept and even expect the government to sometimes subsidise businesses and people. Otherwise there is little point in having a government. But the bailouts for the banks are for the richest in society not the poorest and for this reason they have no justification. Bailouts can only be valid if the recipients are poor and needy... which is not the case with the bank bailouts and deposit insurance. Since this is true then they can more accurately be described as a form of robbery committed by (a combination of) the government and the banks.

It's not only the government that can print money

Deposit insurance lets private banks print money

Deposit insurance enables private banks to print money out of thin air... deposit insurance is not enough to make a bank public... if the profits (assets) are privately held then the bank is private. Private banks can print (and sell) money because of deposit insurance.

Anything that can't fail can print money

Frb is impossible if the people are enlightened

One of the interesting things about banking and fractional reserve banking is that people don't seem to mind if (guaranteed) banks print money. (We can deduce that they are unenlightened.) If the government prints money by means of Quantitative Easing or something similar there is a frenzy of outrage in the media but if the 'banks' print a similar amount or much more there is silence. The media allow printing of money if it is perpetrated by the banks. Only the (non-bank) government is prevented from doing so by the media. The media are correct to object to inflation but they do not realise that deposit insurance merges the banks and the government. The failure of the media to object to frb indicates they don't know how the system works. Since the media are so easily tricked we could suggest that the practice is a fraud perpetrated by the government... people think the banks are private which enables the state to print money. Frb is possible only because the people think the banks are private.

It's bad for the currency if banks are protected

Deposit insurance is not without negative consequences. Deposit insurance means that banks are immune from bankruptcy. This means that whatever a bank does it cannot ever go out of business even if it makes bad loans with customer deposits. The consequence of this is that the currency becomes inflated with unfunded (but government-protected) bank liabilities. The negative consequence of deposit insurance is (the possibility of) inflation. If there is no deposit insurance banks would have no ability to cause inflation. Banks without deposit insurance cannot cause inflation... they can only do so if they are in the public sector.

By definition banks are part of the government

The definition of a bank is a government agency which has the ability to (cause inflation and) increase the money supply. If the government decides to abandon deposit insurance (and thereby abandon banks) then the definition will change... but until that point banks are (by definition) part of the government. Banks are by definition inflationary... or at least they have the ability to cause inflation even if they do not always choose to do so.

Definition of a safe currency

A safe currency is a currency which is not a deposit-insurance currency. It is the opposite of a deposit-insurance currency.

Definition of a deposit-insurance currency

A deposit-insurance currency is any currency for which there are banks taking deposits in that currency which are able to increase the money supply. It is possible for a bank to increase the money supply if it can make loans with customer deposits and has deposit insurance. If a bank taking deposits in a particular currency is able to increase the money supply (of that currency) then that currency is said to be a deposit-insurance currency.

A currency for which this is not true is a safe currency.

Inflation is caused by fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is bad only if inflation is bad... which it isn't. The worst thing about frb is the inflation it causes which is not a problem. Inflation is not a problem so frb is not a problem.

Deposit insurance is a subsidy for debt

Deposit insurance makes taxpayers liable for (bad) bank loans. If the bank doesn't make any loans and operates as a full-reserve bank then clearly deposit insurance has no function since all the deposits are fully backed. If the bank does make loans and they are returned to the bank prior to withdrawals then again deposit insurance has no role. It is only when the bank makes loans and these are not returned in time for all withdrawals that there is a problem and the deposit insurance comes into effect. It is when the bank makes bad loans that deposit insurance matters. Deposit insurance is to protect bank customers form the lending decisions of the bank. It is a subsidy for bank loans.

Deposit insurance is completely unnecessary

An institution which can print money is not a bank but there are institutions on the high street with banking licences which give the appearance of banks... which people assume are banks partly because they perform the role of custodian. Banks must also not increase the money supply. Being able to pretend to be a bank is of great advantage to these institutions because it makes people less suspicious. If they are not banks and can make loans in spite of having deposit insurance then they are causing inflation. If to cause inflation and not be the government is criminal then for these institutions not to be banks (or the government) is criminal. It is only because they are part of the state that it is allowed. Private institutions can't print money but what most people regard as banks are not private institutions which means that they are printing money without people knowing about it. People assume banks are private but they have deposit insurance.

The economy is not wealth and so GDP fails

GDP measures the size of the economy but it does not measure wealth... to measure wealth we must include everyone but the economy only includes the wealthy (those who are involved in the economy). It is perfectly possible for a large segment of society (the poor) to be excluded from measures of GDP because they do not make significant transactions. GDP measures transactions which will exclude the poor. To measure wealth we must include everyone which GDP fails to do and so GDP fails as a genuine measure of wealth... although it does measure (the size of) the economy perfectly adequately. The economy alone is not wealth and so GDP fails as a measure of wealth.

Fractional reserve banking is always a conspiracy

Fractional reserve banking is always a conspiracy because it always involves deposit insurance. There can be no fractional reserve banking without deposit insurance because banks would fail... there would be a bank run. The only thing that makes fractional reserve banking possible is deposit insurance which means that it is always a conspiracy.

It is a conspiracy for banks to cause inflation

It is not a conspiracy for a private bank to make loans with customer deposits... a conspiracy can only be something associated with the government. Banks with deposit insurance are part of the government so we can say that fractional reserve banking (frb) is not a conspiracy unless the bank has deposit insurance... in which case frb becomes a conspiracy. So to reiterate fractional reserve banking is not a conspiracy unless the banks have deposit insurance... which most (all?) of them do. Deposit insurance makes fractional reserve banking a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that banks (are able to) cause inflation... which is not possible without deposit insurance and the ability of banks to engage in fractional reserve banking. If it is not illegal for banks with deposit insurance to do fractional reserve banking then the practice of frb is then a conspiracy.

We are not banks so deposit insurance is wrong

There is a difference between people and banks so it makes no sense for there to be deposit insurance. If a bank fails that is not worse than people failing so the state has no obligation to protect the banks. Since the state has no obligation to protect the banks it should not protect the banks and deposit insurance is wrong and immoral.

Fractional reserve banking is not banking

Fractional reserve banking is not banking in the true sense of the word. If the bank fails to retain the belongings in the bank then it has failed to provide the service of banking. Banks do not make loans with customer assets... unless the customer understands that this may happen and is willing to forego use of the money for the period. If the bank makes loans with deposits which are available on demand this is not banking. It is not banking if the bank causes inflation. The only true form of banking is full reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is either theft or fraud.

Debt is not good for a healthy economy

The notion of debt is false. We owe people nothing even if they have been kind to us in the past. To be kind in the expectation of receiving something in return is not a kindness. If to lend is not charity then (to be valid) it must be something which is best for everyone. If something is not good for a society or group then it is not good and is invalid. Debt is invalid because it does not serve the interests of the group. It is not good for someone in difficulties (only poor people get into debt) to have their problems further compounded by liabilities falling due in the future. Debts should be forgiven and should not be recognised in the first place. Debt is a bad thing for a society.

Fptp and frb should be against the constitution

If there is a government it should not practice either fptp or frb.

Banks are rich because they can print money

Fractional reserve banking means that there is a difference between narrow money and broad money. Unless this situation persists (which we will come back to) then that leaves one of two options available: we can either i) Monetise all the credit leading to an inflation of narrow money so that existing broad money becomes narrow money... or ii) Let the banks fail and experience a financial crash. Since neither of these is palatable we tend to go on in a neutral position with both narrow and broad money (and fractional reserve banking) existing.

Fractional reserve banking exists if there is a difference between narrow and broad money... if such a thing as broad money exists.

Since fractional reserve banking (frb) persists and broad money exists then banks are able to issue something of value which normal companies are not able to do. This situation is equivalent to banks being able to print government narrow money unless a crash is possible. If a crash is not possible then banks effectively print money. Even if a banking crash is possible being able to print broad money in the short term is very similar to being able to print cash... even if eventually there will be a crash. It's not very much preferable to the rest of us for banks to only be able to print broad money (and not cash) than for them to be able to print cash. If banks could print cash it would not be much worse.

Fractional reserve banking would only be different from outright counterfeiting if we can expect there to be a banking crash... otherwise it is equivalent. Frb is counterfeiting unless there will be a bank run and a crash of the financial system. If there is not a crash it is counterfeiting.

This means that due to their privileged legal status banks (together with their customers) are able to accrue wealth merely by increasing the money supply... rather than by conventional free-market means. If a fiat currency is imposed on the population then anyone who can print that currency will find it easy to acquire wealth. Banks are not poor because they can print money. Banks are rich because of deposit insurance.

Wealth is finite on a finite planet so it is a problem if banks can print their own money because they will be able to control an excess of the scarce resources. It is a problem if agents within the economy can print money... counterfeiting is a problem because it is not fair on the rest of the population. Counterfeiting is unfair.

There is no such thing as tactical voting

Tactical voting is a myth. People who claim to vote tactically (using fptp) merely to reject the other mainstream fptp party are still endorsing a mainstream party so this is not tactical voting. We are not voting tactically if we vote for a mainstream party. We only vote tactically if we reject the mainstream parties. And if it is possible to reject the mainstream parties (as with pr) then we are not voting tactically... either.

Democracy does not exist

There is nothing wrong with democracy

...but fptp is not democracy.

Democracy is choice and proportionality

Democracy is concerned with choice. If there is no choice there is no democracy. First past the post removes choice because only one of the established parties has a chance of power. There is no point voting for one of the smaller parties because unless a sufficient number of people do so your vote will be wasted. We know that there are established parties on the right and on the left and so there is no point considering anyone else. We waste our vote if we do not vote for an establishment candidate. Because all the power is given to the single winning candidate votes for smaller parties get no recognition... and are a wasted vote. It is only worthwhile to vote for a candidate who has a chance of (outright) success. Because of this dynamic our choice of candidates is reduced to just two... one on either side of the left-right axis. Fptp reduces choice by not giving minority candidates representation. Failure to accommodate minority candidates reduces choice and since democracy is concerned with choice this reduces the effectiveness of fptp as a democratic system. Failure to be proportional reduces choice and is not democratic... to be democratic a voting system must be proportional. If there is not proportionality there is not choice and if there is not choice there is not democracy. Democracy is choice and without proportionality there is no choice. Proportionality is choice. Without choice there is no democracy.

Pr elections are less invalid than fptp elections

The government is not valid but at least if we introduced a proportional system of voting it would be less invalid. The government would be less invalid with pr. Fptp makes the government even more invalid than it otherwise would be.

It is impossible to impose pr on the government

Guilt is a truth claim. When a jury is asked to find a defendant guilty or not guilty they are being asked if they concur with the claims made by the case for the prosecution. To accuse someone of a crime is to make a claim... which the defendant will seek to refute. If nothing is true then no one is guilty and there are no criminals and no crimes.

We can think of the government as a criminal but to gain a prosecution against it we must show that a crime has been committed and if there are no crimes then the government is always innocent. It is for this reason that the government is resistant to proportional representation. We can view pr as the sentence for a guilty government. But if the government is innocent there is no reason to impose pr. Pr is a sentence imposed on a guilty government.

The government can always deny its guilt.

If government is bad (guilty) then we would want pr... if not then we can stick with fptp. Trying to impose pr on the government is like trying to impose a sentence on a criminal... impossible.

The paradox of democracy

The paradox of democracy is that without altering the system to accommodate proportional representation we end up with a two-party system dominated by the centre-left party. Without gerrymandering the system we end up with communism. To be free we need to tweak the system to make sure minorities are represented... to be free we need to cheat.

Democracy represents minorities

First past the post is not democratic because it does not give representation to minorities. Minorities are represented in a democratic system.

Only the government can fix the voting system

Only the government has the power to do anything about it so unless you are taking the role of the government in your discussions your opinion is not very valid. If you are arguing against someone who is arguing from the perspective of the government then (assuming you are pro-pr) there is still no point arguing. If they want to advance pr then you have no quarrel... if they want to retain fptp there is not much you can do about a null position. To argue against the government (against fptp) is to argue against inaction which is impossible... we can only ague against action.

The only person who can argue with the government over pr and fptp is an fptp-advocate who opposes change to pr.

There is no difference between the state and fptp

Proportional representation is worse for socialism

We have two sources of aggression to fear that from individual criminals in society (crime) and that from government... which is known as socialism. Whilst pr and fptp might both be equally effective at preventing crime perpetrated by individuals (against the state) they are not equally effective against aggression committed by the state. It is much easier for the state to be aggressive with fptp. And much more difficult under pr.

First past the post was a mistake

First past the post forces economic liberals to vote for the monopolistic centre-right party... to oppose socialism. Under fptp there is no other option to oppose socialism than the leading centre-right party. This means that economic liberals have no choice but to vote for a monopolistic party of the right. This is a problem if the centre-right party concerned becomes offensive and then there is no reasonable choice to make.

With pr third party votes are bad for socialists

The problem with fptp is that there is only one choice to (tactically) keep out the main centre-left socialist party. With fptp there is a monopoly on anti-socialism. With pr there are many different parties which oppose socialism. In fact under pr all third party votes are bad for the leading socialist party. With fptp third party votes do not hurt the socialists and so we can say that they fall in favour of the socialist party. With fptp third party votes are favourable to the socialists whereas with pr third party votes are bad for the socialists.

There is nothing to fear from freedom

In a majoritarian election it is easy for small groups to establish themselves as powerful political parties because only a small number of people need to collaborate to get elected. (At least initially.) In the broadest sense of a democracy we can imagine the most liberal type of voting to be voting for ourselves... as we do in a referendum. All other types of voting are representative voting where we are not voting for ourselves but instead having someone else vote on our behalf. If everyone votes for themselves and a few people choose a leader to vote for then (even if that number is relatively small) their leader will get elected and control the entirety of the power. In that sense fptp is good for collectivism and collectivists. With pr we can vote for ourselves and still have representation in parliament. There is nothing to fear from pr unless there is something to fear from freedom.

There is something wrong with fptp

If democracy is mob rule then fptp is worse than democracy because with fptp it is possible to rule with very much fewer than half of the vote. Fptp is worse than democracy it is rule by minority. There is no post. At least with other forms of (preference) voting the winning candidate requires support from most of the electorate. If we do not have power allocated in proportion to votes (pr) then we have minority rule... fptp is government by the least small minority. The least small minority takes (is given) all the power. There is no reason not to allocate representation according to votes... there is no reason to give it all to the party which comes first. There is no reason to have fptp. It is more natural to allocate power equally according to the number of votes received. People who dislike fptp have a justified complaint.

Proportional rep. is less democratic than fptp

Democracy is bad because it means being exposed to the whims of the electorate. Proportional representation is better than fptp because it offers less democracy to the electorate. Pr is less democratic than fptp because it offers more defence to the voters. Democracy is not being able to do anything about aggression.

Proportional representation is not government

The difference between pr and fptp is that with pr we are all represented with fptp only one person is represented. Fptp is inherently 'presidential' whereas with pr we all have power. Only one person can win with fptp. The party whips control the parties themselves so that within each party there is only one leader. With pr the leader of a political party has much less power... in effect there aren't really any political parties. Fptp is analogous to a mayoral election the MPs are redundant if they are not the leader of the party... only the leader counts. With pr there is no leader and everyone (including the voters) may consider themselves to be a part of the government. Pr is democracy whereas fptp is government by a chosen leader. With fptp people choose their leader with pr we are the leaders of ourselves.

Without tactical voting democracy is meaningless

The purpose of democracy is tactical voting... if we did not have any objection to the leader then we would have no need for democracy. We need democracy if the leader is unpopular and so it is the tactical elements of democracy which are important.

Prop. rep. is good for tactical voting

Proportional representation enhances the ability to vote tactically.

Prop. rep. is the best form of democracy

If democracy is aggressive it is illegitimate but we can also think of democracy as a defensive institution which serves to defend the community from aggressive individuals. Democracy can be a deterrent to criminals. If we think of democracy in this (defensive) way then to serve as a politician would be a great honour and for this reason we would want to make sure those elected are subject to the greatest scrutiny possible. If democracy is defensive then we would want it to be efficient and the most efficient form of democracy is pr.

Democracy doesn't exist as a concept

Democracy is the (false) concept that popular people have the right to rule over other people but this right does not exist. Democracy does not exist. We have no right to rule over other people because we own no one even minorities. Minorities are not owned and there is no democracy.

All forms of democracy are invalid

All forms of democracy are invalid but the least invalid form of democracy is proportional representation.

Courageous people don't like first past the post

To advocate fptp is cowardice because it is only someone who defends the government who would prefer fptp. To advocate fptp is to defend the government from democratic attack but the government is not weak it is powerful so by advocating fptp we are defending the powerful from the weak. The government is powerful and fptp makes it even more powerful. The government would be weaker under pr. Only a coward would defend the government.

The antithesis of government is pr

If there is a government then the most freedom will be provided with pr... because this leads to the least government. It is not a contradiction for the government to retain fptp because fptp makes it difficult for people to diminish the size of the government. It makes sense for the government to prefer fptp. The government will never advocate pr anyone who advocates pr is not the government.

Liberals do not fear proportionality

Proportional representation is not damaging to liberals. Tactical voting is the kind of voting whereby people tolerate one form of government tyranny to avoid another. This means that (perhaps) liberals will tolerate some form of social authoritarianism to avoid economic authoritarianism or vice versa. If a political party is in no way authoritarian then it will have nothing to fear from pr only authoritarians benefit from tactical voting (votes which under pr would go elsewhere). Liberals are trapped under fptp into voting for some form of authoritarianism to avoid another... if they vote tactically and do not waste their vote. If pr is damaging to a political party in receipt of tactical votes this demonstrates that they are not liberals. Liberals do not receive tactical votes because they are not offensive (authoritarian) to anyone... and so they would have nothing to fear from pr. Only those parties which receive tactical votes would have something to fear from pr.

First past the post is (still) government

No anarchist is in support of fptp because it removes the ability of the rest of the mafia to challenge the main parties. Anarchy is liberal which means that we can challenge the claims made by authoritarians. It is amusing to think that conservatives opposed to pr consider themselves proponents of liberty when pr is liberty. There is no reason to be opposed to pr and liberalism. To be an opponent of pr is to be an anti-capitalist since pr promotes choice... even within the mafia. Liberalism is not bad for the mafia just as it is not bad for the rest of us... we have nothing to fear from a liberalised (pr) government it just makes it easier to remove. It is better to be given the vote than to be denied it and fptp is still (a form of) democracy. The government (mafia) is no more legitimised and therefore no more powerful under pr than under fptp. Pr does nothing to legitimise the government there is a government even when we have fptp so we might as well have pr. Fptp is not anarchy. First past the post is only good for those parts of the mafia resistant to liberalism. Pr is good news for the mafia because it ends the mafia.

Liberalism is the only valid ideology

Liberalism and anti-collectivism is the only valid political ideology. If conservatism is not liberalism for reasons of imposing on either social or economic freedoms then it is not a valid ideology. Freedom is the only rational ambition politically. Anything opposed to liberalism is collectivism and communism.

Proportional representation is anarchy

Given that proportional representation makes the mafia more liberal we can say that pr destroys the mafia (which is the government) and so pr is anarchy.

The only reason to support fptp is collectivism

Fptp is good for collectivists within the mafia

If the mafia hold elections it is better that they are pr elections than fptp elections. Being in favour of pr doesn't mean you are supportive of (and recognise) the government... even if you are an anarchist it is possible to prefer pr. A fptp government is more dangerous than a pr government. If there is dissent within the mafia then pr enables this to be exposed and the mafia cannot progress until it is dealt with.

Fptp enables the mafia to stifle and ignore dissent within it.

It doesn't make sense to be a politician

Proportionality is democracy and democracy is bad

Democracy does not alter the legitimacy of the government and so first past the post is preferable to proportional representation.

Only anarchists support first past the post

Proportional representation prevents socialism

Socialism is inevitable under a fptp system. The only way to prevent socialism in a democracy is proportional representation. If we have democracy then the best way to prevent socialism is pr. If there is not democracy then tyrants will be unopposed... if we do not want either tyranny or socialism then pr is the best situation. Pr is the best form of democracy at preventing socialism. Fptp is not very good at preventing socialism.

Democracy isn't socialist

Tyrants will always need to be convinced that other people want to be left alone and the only way to convince them effectively is with democracy. Democracy is the only effective remedy against tyrants and for that reason it is inevitable.

Equal (proportional) representation is conservative

First past the post is not conservative. To be conservative a voting system must be inherently defensive because to be conservative is to be defensive against tyranny. Because democracy is defensive then the most democratic system is the most defensive... and hence the most conservative. Democracy is conservative.

First past the post is good for bad people

First past the post is good for tyrants because it is less democratic than pr. Democracy is a civilising institution which protects the population form tyranny. Democracy is defensive and so more democracy is more defensive. If we want to be defended from tyrants then we would want as much democracy as possible and we would want to have pr.

Proportional representation is the best form of democracy because it is the most effective at removing tyrants. Those who seek to retain fptp are protecting tyrants.

Good people like democracy and so good people would like to have more of it where that is possible.

First past the post is anarchy

To be a government is to be elected proportionally

To be a government an institution must be elected by proportional representation. If an institution is elected via fptp or some other non-proportional system then it cannot call itself a government... for it is not one. Governments must be (are) elected proportionately.

Courts should be elected proportionately

Government is not bad and so proportional representation should be advocated. Anarchy is not preferable to government because government is defensive (and conservative) in a manner similar to the courts. We can think of the government as an extension of the courts system... and it is uncontroversial to say the courts offer protection from tyranny. Most anarchists still advocate some system of courts but the government itself is a court controlled by the electorate. To be supportive of the courts is not to be an anarchist. Because anarchy is not a robust position we can say that government is defensive and good and that pr is good. If pr is not good then government is not good but government is an extension of the courts (and is defensive) so it is a contradiction to say that pr is not good. To be opposed to pr is to be opposed to justice and the courts because government is the courts.

Fptp is only partial representation not complete

Not one of the main (fptp) parties is perfect

Fptp is good for the left-wing half of the fptp system

All forms of democracy are conservative reactions to the desired tyranny of an authoritarian group (democracy is defensive). Democracy is always a defensive force for good and so we should extend its reach wherever possible. Democracy is conservative. If there are elections we can assume people do not want socialism they want to be left alone to the greatest extent possible. They only want socialism when they think no other option is possible or reasonable. People do not want to be looked after by the government.

People do not want socialism (when they can see it clearly for what it is) but even if that is what they want fptp offers no protection from it because socialist votes will already be lost to the socialist party. If one of the main parties is socialist fptp offers no protection. Both fptp parties would need to reject socialism for fptp to be an effective defence against it.

Fptp is a protection against socialism only if i) the electorate want socialism and ii) both of the leading parties are against socialism. If one or both of these conditions is false then fptp is detrimental to freedom. For fptp to be liberal would require both of the main parties to be to the right of the electorate. If only one of the main parties is to the right of the electorate this is not enough because the (presumed) left-wing electorate would be comfortable voting for the other party.

To be an advocate of fptp (and a libertarian) assumes both of the main parties are liberal and to the 'right' of the electorate.

First past the post is not a problem for and is tolerated by liberal people who think (not just one but) both of the main parties are anti-socialists (to the right of the electorate).

First past the post duopolies are left wing

The problem with fptp is that honest non-tactical votes often allow the establishment parties to get in. This might not be too much of a problem if the two establishment parties are equal but opposite... (if the left-right dichotomy holds up) but in reality there is a difference between left and right which is often missed: The right-wing party in a fptp duopoly is a defensive reaction to the nature of majoritarian elections. Typically liberals and libertarians would choose disparate individual small parties to vote for. The emergence of a singular 'establishment' party is a result of fptp psephology.

This may then lead to even more collectivism on the left and a similar monolithic political party will form in opposition.

Freedom results from the negation of tyranny... good things happen when crime and mischief is removed... we get freedom not from the presence of the centre-right party but from the absence of the centre-left party which means the left-right paradigm which emerges under fptp is not benign. It would be better to have a plethora of small parties which each could get representation.

The fptp parties reject freedom

The fptp parties are anti-democracy and therefore anti-freedom. Freedom is synonymous with democracy and so when the main pro-fptp parties reject electoral reform they are being anti-freedom and pro-tyranny. Fptp is a form of tyranny.

The government is unpopular because of fptp

The government is unpopular because it does not accommodate proportional representation.

There is no greater freedom than democracy

With a proportional voting system we can guarantee freedom and fair outcomes. With fptp there is a risk that outcomes are not free and proportional... this risk is eliminated under pr.

Fair votes eliminates the risk of not-proportional (not free) outcomes.

We know that we want proportional outcomes (we are not socialists) because otherwise we would not have a democratic system. It would not be difficult to guarantee proportionality (the absence of socialism) rather than to merely hope for it... so we might as well go to the small trouble of arranging proportional elections. A proportional system guarantees the absence of socialism whereas fptp only offers the chance of its absence. Proportionality guarantees freedom (from government) but fptp doesn't (and cannot) make this guarantee.

Democracy is the best way to remove socialism

There is nothing wrong with democracy

It is well understood that if liberals do not vote tactically in a majoritarian election then this is helpful to the collectivist parties and voters of the left. A proportional system does not require tactical voting so it removes this inherent democratic advantage (which is present in a majoritarian system) from the collectivists. If a system is not proportional there is no way (for liberals) to oppose collectivists without voting tactically... which many liberals are reluctant to do. Under a majoritarian system if liberals do not vote tactically (which is to say defensively) then the 'left' will win. Majoritarian systems are not helpful to liberals because of the requirement to vote tactically... a defensive vote must be a tactical vote with fptp whereas with pr any vote (even a non-tactical honest vote) is defensive. Not only tactical votes are defensive with pr all of them are. With fptp only tactical votes are defensive against tyranny.

Fptp requires people to vote tactically which is not a requirement of pr where all votes are automatically (naturally) defensive and so there is no need for people to vote tactically.

First past the post is bad for the country... unless one of the two main parties is liberal

Since neither one of the two mainstream fptp parties is liberal (or libertarian) then we can deduce that fptp is detrimental to the country. If one of the two main parties is respectful of individual rights then fptp is not a threat to the country but since that is not the case then we can say fptp is objectively bad and unpatriotic. If we accept 'unpatriotic' to mean bad for the country overall then fptp is unpatriotic unless one of the two main parties is liberal. Since neither one of the main parties is liberal then fptp (and supporters of fptp) is (are) unpatriotic.

First past the post restricts access to government

First past the post is not freedom because we have to choose a government formed by one of the mainstream parties... with pr we can choose anyone. Freedom means not being excluded by (being allowed into government by) the two main parties which have disproportionate and illegitimate power. With pr the main parties cannot exclude voters and are forced to share power.

A proportional system allows everyone into government and is more competitive for those parties and individuals who seek office. Proportional voting opens up government to the voters.

Democracy is not government

Democracy is not a form of government it is the reverse... it is a form of protection against government. We use democracy to protect ourselves from tyranny and all forms of tyranny have the properties of government. Democracy is a defensive protection from (the prevention of) government it is not government itself.

"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Winston Churchill

Democracy can never be said to be aggressive since it is only a means to sanction force not the application of force itself.

Fractional reserve banking does not exist

The implicit assertion made by the banks and the government (even if they do not know they are making it) is that bank liabilities are shared with the population. This is not true... bank liabilities belong to no one else but the banks.

Fractional reserve banking is socialism

The forced sharing of liabilities is collectivism and socialism. It is not capitalism if taxpayers are forced to bail out the liabilities of private firms. The definition of public sector is that the liabilities are public... as with fractional reserve banks which cannot exist without taxpayer support. (Something with private liabilities which can fail is a private firm.)

If banks cannot fail they are part of the government.

Frb enables borrowers to steal from the population

The problem with fractional reserve banking is that when a loan is taken out from a bank this results in inflation which is a form of theft. Purchasing power is extracted from the rest of the money supply by a combination of the bank and the borrowing customer. Together they have stolen from the economy by (means of) inflation. It is theft not only by the bank but by a combination of the bank and the customer. In fact it is the customer who plays the dominant role since the bank itself only collects the interest. Borrowers steal from the rest of the population with the help of the bank.

Printing money is not harmful

The government forces us to use currencies which can be printed by the banks. This means we have no means to avoid the seigniorage (inflation) caused by fractional reserve banking. Taxation is why we cannot escape the banks. Given that we have taxation (and the government is unwilling to repeal it) then the problems caused by the banks are merely the problems of counterfeiting. Banks do no more harm than counterfeiters... the real problem is that we are forced to use fiat currencies. Fractional reserve banking is just counterfeiting and does not initiate force. As much as we might expect to find an ethical problem with frb there is none... the fact of our being forced to tolerate it is not the fault of the banks it is the fault of the government. Banking is not a problem of the private sector the roots of the problem lie with the government and prohibition of counterfeiting in general.

PR removes power from the political parties

Democracy is a civilising influence

Anarchy (specifically a lack of democracy) would not bring safety if you are not safe under democracy. If what you want to do is rejected by the majority of people we can assume that what you want to do is a bad idea. Democracy is not offensive to good ideas. Democracy is not always offensive to bad ideas it is true but that is not the same problem. Just because democracy can tolerate some bad ideas doesn't mean it prevents freedom. Freedom is a good idea that is prevented by people not democracy. If democracy prevents freedom then people without democracy would be just as efficient at opposing it... perhaps more so.

Those who oppose justifiable reform are insane

If to deny a true claim is insanity then those who oppose reform of the voting system and the banking system are insane.

The right might not realise why they are disliked

We cannot expect the right to realise that fptp is a problem. The left enjoy first past the post because they collect extra votes from people who are dissatisfied with the right for reasons other than economics. If we can characterise the right as a combination of economic liberalism and social prejudice then the right will lose economically liberal votes because of their social policies. This will be advantageous to the left and we can understand why the left would support (or not seek to replace) first past the post. Even though the left support fptp the right do not oppose it because they cannot see a problem and deduce that the population are more to the left (economically) than in reality. They ascribe all votes for the left to economic collectivism and none to being appalled at the social prejudices of the right. The right assume (wrongly) that all votes for the left are to do with economics but in reality the right lose many votes for their social policies. Because the right do not realise why they are unpopular... assuming others share their prejudices... they see no reason to be against fptp. The right are fine with fptp because they are unaware of their prejudices and so do not realise it is for these reasons that they are losing votes to the left. Or if they are aware of this dynamic we could say that the right prefer to keep their socially oppressive policies than oppose economic collectivism. Either they are unaware of their prejudices or would prefer to keep their prejudices even if losing them could achieve economic liberalism. They care more about oppressing innocent people than liberating themselves (assuming they are aware of their prejudices).

The right might not realise why they are disliked but if they do they are hurting themselves merely (because they want) to hurt others.

Democracy is bad for collectivists

A proportional voting system leads to more variety and more liberalism. Collectivists dominate parliament because the voting system does not offer the electorate a means to get rid of them. With pr the population could remove the collectivists from parliament.

Communism is not impossible

Communism is not impossible if we leave each other alone.

Individual communism enables people to think and behave in a collectivist way... which is more mentally healthy and yet causes no harm. The harm caused by communism is due to its collectivist ideology. If we can be socially-minded individually then we will do no harm. We can have a kind of communism which does not punish people for failing to serve the state. It is a kind of communism by choice... a stateless communism.

Why we still have frb and first past the post

Fractional reserve banking and fptp are resistant to change because they require a positive campaign to get rid of them... rather than a destructive campaign like getting rid of taxes.

To campaign against frb is in fact to campaign in favour of full-reserve fiat money. Just like a campaign against fptp is actually a campaign for proportional representation. And because these are positive campaigns they are not very successful even though they would lead to liberal outcomes.

Fractional reserve banking is not the only option

Fractional reserve banking is not the only type of banking possible there are other means by which banking can be provided.

Property rights are a matter of opinion

There is no point arguing against communism because the proponent doesn't claim they are not a communist. (They do not deny being a communist.) If someone who is a communist doesn't find their collectivist ideology to be a contradiction then you cannot win the argument.

Definition: Money has value for its own sake only

Money is something which has value for no other reason that its being money. Money has value for its own sake. If something (such as a commodity) has value for some other reason than its status as money then we can think of it as being only partially money. The familiar notes and coins which are issued by the state are fully money because they have no other value or purpose.

Frb denialists think govt credit is worthless

The government is insolvent (their promises are worthless) or banks print money... not both of these statements are false (they can't both be false because there is no third option) one must be true. Either banks print money or the promises of the government are not worth anything. If government credit is valuable then banks print money.

Anything with deposit insurance is not a bank

All banks can fail which means that entities which are perceived as banks are not banks because they have deposit insurance and cannot fail. Entities which are commonly perceived to be banks cannot fail and are not banks... they are part of the government.

Fractional reserve banking is insane

The contradiction is that any firm for which fractional reserve banking is possible is not a bank and so the name is misleading and inaccurate. No one can do fractional reserve banking because to be able to do it means that you can increase the money supply which means you are government and not a bank. Fractional reserve banking is impossible since it would not be banking.

Banks can't increase the money supply

The government is not and cannot be a bank... if an organisation (perhaps with the appearance of being a bank) can increase the money supply it is not a bank it is part of the government.

Only government increases the money supply not banks.

Banks cannot increase the money supply... even the central bank as well as member commercial 'banks' is not really a bank it is just (nothing more than) part of the government.

Politicians do not understand the electorate because of fptp

First past the post enables politicians to not know what people want. With pr we know what people want (even if they are wrong) because they have a free choice and no reason to vote tactically. Tactical voting means that politicians may get votes in spite of people not entirely agreeing with them... and not get votes even if people agree with them. Fptp makes politics confusing for politicians who do not know what people want.

Anyone that defends frb is a socialist

Anyone that supports fractional reserve banking is not a libertarian. Libertarians dislike fractional reserve banking.

People think banks can fail

Fractional reserve banking is entirely a fraud. It would not work if a sufficient number of people are aware of it... it requires people not to know about it which means it is a fraud. The fraud is perpetrated not simply by the banks but by a combination of the government and the banks. The government and the banks are one if there is deposit insurance (and fractional reserve banking) so the fraud is perpetrated by the government. Frb is a fraud perpetrated by the government.

Banks are not private because of deposit insurance

Banks with deposit insurance are not private firms... they rely on the government to maintain solvency. Banks are not private if they have deposit insurance they are being protected by the state like the public sector.

Fptp is good because it delays change

First past the post is better than pr because it is an obstacle to revolutionary change. To make a significant change to the political system under fptp requires that you must join (and convince) one of the main two parties. With pr we can manifest change without joining one of the main parties. It is because fptp delays change that it is preferable.

The govt is inconsistent to let banks print money

It doesn't make sense for the government to tolerate unsound banking and allow banks to increase the money supply. Frb (in conjunction with deposit insurance) is good for the banks of course but it's hard to see what the government gets out of it.

It's strange that the government lets the banks increase the money supply.

Libertarians who understand banking hate frb

Fractional reserve banking is the reason why we cannot let banks fail. If banks have practiced fractional reserve banking (frb) in the past then the extent of the collapse which would result from free banking would be too great for the government to tolerate. The government can't let banks fail because they have done fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking makes it impossible for the government to let banks fail.

Libertarians who understand banking realise that frb is a problem because it (induces the government to protect the banks and thereby) prevents free-market banking. To not realise that frb is a problem suggests that you do not understand the banking system.

Work doesn't pay if banks can print money

The existence of unsound banking* means that banks are able to exploit the balance sheet of the government. The government has failed to protect its balance sheet. We cannot have sound money without sound banking. Without sound banking there can be no sound money. If sound money is good then we would want to have sound banking... but it might not be good. It is (might be) bad if money holds its value because fiat money is only a store of value relative to others. It has value only because of its scarcity amongst others. It is comparative wealth not absolute.

Fractional reserve banking makes fiat money a very bad investment. But even if bad money drives out good money it does not alter the fact that bad money can still form a part of the money supply. People still use fiat money despite Gresham's law. Fiat money is still money despite it not having any objective value.

The government survives the inflation caused by fractional reserve banking which is bad for people who earn and save money. Unsound banking destroys the incentive to (work and) earn money... unless the government does not survive. Because the government survives fractional reserve banking it (frb) is bad for people who want to save money.

Inflation destroys savings. Fractional reserve banking is bad for (rich) people who have money.

*A combination of deposit insurance and a lack of any prohibition on fractional reserve banking.

It is wrong to accept a subsidy from the government

Inflation (currency counterfeiting) is not theft. It is not the fault of the counterfeiter that the government creates artificial demand for fiat currencies. If the government did not tax people then there would be no demand for fiat and value could not be extracted by currency counterfeiting. (So the harm caused by counterfeiting is a result of taxation.) However... if there is taxation than allowing some people (banks) to counterfeit does create a problem and invalidate the social contract. Taxation is not valid if banks are allowed to print money. If there is taxation (a fiat currency) then frb must be verboten (illegal) otherwise the government is invalid. The government is only valid if frb is made illegal. If we have taxation (and it is to remain fair) then we must not have frb. Frb makes tax unfair. Only if the government makes frb illegal is it valid. Government is invalid if it fails to prohibit frb.