Vicious circle: First past the post excludes morality

Proportional representation is a form of democratic liberalism.

Being critical of the banking system wastes time

If there is government it should not insure banks

It’s not possible to understand (recognise) the problem with banking without understanding the problem with government. If you understand banking you will come to question (be forced to have questioned) the cause of monetary value. If you think banks are evil you must too think government is evil. Banks are not evil unless government is evil. Banks are no worse than government.

Government is incompetent if banks do inflation

It is amazing (and ridiculous) that the government would align itself with the banks and guarantee the banking system. The government is guaranteeing fraud and turning it into counterfeiting. Fraud becomes counterfeiting because of the deposit guarantee. The government would be more tolerable without deposit insurance. They are hated because of deposit insurance and for not reforming the banking system.

We hate the government for not reforming the banking system.

Fractional reserve banking is secret share dilution

Fractional reserve banking should be illegal even in a free market. Share dilution (issuing new credit) is public and transparent... whereas fractional reserve banking is covert. If extra credit is being created there is a responsibility to make sure everyone involved knows about it. Share dilution should never be private (and secret) it should always be publicly known about.

Fractional reserve banking should be illegal

We are victims of the banking system in the sense that banks are trusted even if they have bad credit. Fractional reserve banking (frb) means banks are trusted when they shouldn’t be. Since this is possible it is reasonable for the government to intervene to prevent inflation. Other customers and savers should be protected from frb by making the practice illegal. The human psyche is vulnerable to trusting banks (the unconscious dominates the conscious) and so frb should be illegal.

Fractional reserve banking should be illegal to protect people from inflation. Free market banking is impossible bank deposits are always government deposits... and even if they are not frb is fraudulent and creates private sector inflation... see below.

The problem (with deposit insurance for full reserve banking) would be that once the bank has gone slightly bust there is no reason not to go completely bust. Then (without deposit insurance) the government has no role in helping (guaranteeing) the customer... other than to make frb illegal.

Even if there is no deposit insurance frb should still be illegal because it is (fraudulent and) inflationary. If it is not fraudulent it is not frb. Frb is not possible without fraud. Fraud (in banking) causes inflation. There would be no inflation if there is not fraud.

Proportional representation is a left wing ideology

No party can claim to be left wing unless they support fair votes. Left wing parties support a reform of the voting system... Otherwise they are monarchist.

Fractional reserve banking increases money supply

Money is less valuable as a result of fractional reserve banking.

Expensive goods are because of deposit insurance

If the government doesn't let banks fail then prices are expensive.

Quantitative easing is better than frac res banking

Banks are part of the state so we should make sure they do not make loans. Banks credit is government credit so fractional reserve banking (fractional reserve government) should be illegal. The government should not increase the money supply when it lends... the government should print debt-free money.

Full reserve banking is the only form of banking

Banks runs are beneficial not a problem to avoid

Banks are part of the state or there is no insurance

If both of the following are true then banks are part of the state and print money: i) banks are guaranteed by the central bank ii) the central bank is guaranteed by the state. If either (or both) are false then banks do not print money and are not part of the state.

These two statements can’t both be wrong... only one is correct: Either there is no valid deposit insurance for the banking system (deposit insurance is unreliable) or banks print money.

Even without state insurance frb is counterfeiting

Fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting in all cases. In the case of deposit insurance when a bank issues extra credit this means that the bank is issuing more government liabilities. This is printing (government) money. But someone (in a free market without deposit insurance) who issues unfunded IOUs is still printing money even if it is worthless. Someone who runs a ponzi scheme is printing money even if that money has no value. It is possible to print worthless money.

Fractional reserve banking in a free market is counterfeiting because the use of the word bank suggests the organisation will not use deposits for loans. Bank suggests full reserve banking.

Not all wealth is derived from spending and trade

Gross domestic product (GDP) can be increased by taxation. If savings are appropriated by the state which would not otherwise have been spent and then spent by the state this contributes to the GDP. So GDP is clearly a measure of something other than wealth.

Even if GDP excludes government spending (and measures private transactions only) it is still not a measure of wealth. Spending alone does not create wealth although efficiencies derived from the division of labour are reliant on (at least) some spending. Private GDP could be said to be a measure of the extent to which the division of labour is being exploited but no more than that.

Central banks should not be public (if they are)

There are no commercial banks because of the state

It's only a problem for the government that banks print money. The banks (too insolvent to fail) are scrounging from the state.

The government is harmed by deposit insurance

The state has no duty to prevent a banking collapse

Deposit insurance is ruining the government balance sheet. The government don't really care about printing money and inflation.

Cash is nothing more than a token of liability for the government.

Without deposit insurance the state is not a bank

Deposit insurance should not exist otherwise the state is a bank.

Banks are not stateless if there is deposit insurance

It’s funny (a contradiction) that liberals do not object to this practice... assuming they even know about it. Like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time we can deduce that silence from liberals on this issue indicates (or at least suggest) ignorance.

Deposit insurance turns frb into full res banking

Fractional reserve banking is not even a valid free-market enterprise. There must always be other agents (other depositors) who lose out. Otherwise it is nothing more than an IOU being issued (and passed off as money) between collaborators. (Not quite counterfeiting more a situation where the good name of the bank is assumed to be reliable.)

If there is no deposit insurance deceit is inherent in this practice of exploiting third parties otherwise the word ‘bank’ would not be used.

In a free market fractional reserve banking is fake banking... we cannot say it is a fraud if it is something they openly admit to.

Deposit insurance is caused by fractional banking

We wouldn't need deposit insurance if not for fractional banking.

To protect themselves from the banks government and people should withhold deposit insurance

To be free is to be free from fractional reserve banking.

The banks do not have a right to be protected from failure. There is no reason for the banks to be protected by the taxpayer.

There is nothing special about banks if they are vulnerable the market will select against them. To be a banker is not a right.

The bank system is analogous to organised crime

From the point of view of the government there is an inconsistency because it’s unfair not to allow everyone to print money. Counterfeiting is not a crime and so the activities of the banks have gone undetected. Monetary expansion by the banks is unlimited. If it is good for both the government and the people to prohibit counterfeiting (to maintain a currency) then it seems strange to make an exception for the banks.

If we are being consistent we would either make it illegal for everyone to print money or no one. Either prohibit counterfeiting for the banks or allow it for everyone.

Currencies are good and so no one should be able to print money.

The problems in banking are caused by socialism

It is a contradiction to hate the excess and inequality of banking and yet support deposit insurance. The problems of banking (disliked by socialists) are caused by socialism.

Socialism causes financial problems due to deposit insurance.

Why it's hard to make people understand banking

To educate people about banking is difficult as a result of the fact that counterfeiting is not aggressive. This (printing money) will never make people angry compared to more aggressive crimes.

Libertarians can be against both the fptp parties

It would be a mistake for the government to introduce fair votes.

Frb is counterfeiting if there is deposit insurance

It is arrogant to think that deposit insurance for banks is a good idea. It is humble to let banks fail like a normal business.

If pr doesn’t work then democracy doesn’t work

The problem (counterargument) with proportional representation is that an elected liberal party might not agree to form a coalition with other parties... resulting in perpetual powerlessness. Only the collectivists would join together (would be prepared to compromise) and only they would ever have power.

The liberal party when faced with the choice between granting power to one of the dominant groups would (or might) decline. This is analogous to choosing not to vote in a first-past-the-post election... the liberal party is expected to choose the least of two evils they are expected to vote tactically.

But to form a coalition (to cooperate) with someone is not so egregious as positively endorsing them by voting as we must do with fptp elections. To cooperate is not to vote or endorse. Fair elections are better because our reluctance to cooperate with (endorse) other parties is more apparent. Our consent is granted with reluctance so that a government may be formed.

It enables voters to disagree with a greater number of policies even if there is consent for the sake of forming a government.

Fair votes enables more government to be rejected

Democracy is the abstraction of violence without it people would attempt to use violence in all sorts of ways. Democracy is a problem only if people are overwhelmingly socialist but then the absence of democracy would be no better.

Democracy isn’t the problem people are the problem.

Fptp gives no representation to minority parties

The non-socialist viewpoint is ignored by first past the post.

First past the post is childish but difficult to remove

Proportional representation is obviously better but there is no reason to be too impatient for its introduction. We must wait.

Fptp makes it difficult to reduce the size of the state

Under a proportional system people will choose the socialism they want (which of course they have no guarantee of achieving) and reject all other kinds. For success they will require enough other people sharing their desire for their particular socialism. With fptp they must weigh up how much they are prepared to tolerate no socialism (of their preferred kind) against promoting some socialism they do not want... they promote unwanted socialism more than they would otherwise have done given a free choice. People will exclude unwanted socialism if they have the choice. We do not order more than we want at the restaurant.

To enter a race where you have an unfair advantage is disgusting.

First past the post is similar to a protection racket

No contract is valid if it is made under duress. First past the post is similar to extortion or a protection racket whereby we must make a choice (vote for one of the main parties) in the knowledge that failing to do so will result in something worse happening. It is not a valid act if we act out of fear of something worse happening.

First past the post is better than nothing but it’s not full (real) democracy.

Proportional representation is no major advantage

There is no reason to have democracy... (the point of democracy is to allow the electorate a veto on government actions) if someone has done something wrong - including the government - they should be arrested. There is nothing special about the government. The ability to make law (to pardon yourself) is no excuse even if elected.

Proportional representation puts more information into the system which makes it easier for government to find out what people want. Tactical voting is voting for people you don't like.

Proportional representation is stronger than fptp

Democracy is a constraint on government. Fptp is not very secure because (unless we are prepared to waste our vote) the big parties can rely on our support even if we do not like what they are doing. It is not very good at keeping the big parties in check.

Anyone that wants proportional representation is a libertarian.

Fractional reserve banking should be illegal... for banks with the state deposit guarantee

Banks cause inflation because of the guarantee

Capitalism is good (chosen) but banks are not part of capitalism.

It would be consistent for the state to ban fractional reserve banking for those institutions which accept the state deposit guarantee. The guarantee could be contingent on the agreement not to make loans with cash deposits.

The problem with banking is the state won’t let go

Money is chosen by the state

Keynesian claims that bank credit isn’t money are not convincing because bank credit trades at parity with cash. The only explanation for the price of bank credit is the government guarantee and so bank credit is fiat money.

There is no other explanation for its value other than the guarantee so it is fiat money.

Bank credit is guaranteed not insured...

It is inconsistent for the liabilities of a private firm to be guaranteed by the state.

It is helpful to use the word guaranteed not insured... insured is misleading and suggestive of something bad having happened. Insurance is for atypical events but it is typical for banks to have insufficient reserves.

If a bank run is prevented there will be inflation

The main source of inflation is deposit insurance not quantitative easing. Deposit insurance is financial pollution and theft.

Banks are not part of the state

Banks are not part of the state and there is no deposit insurance. The word 'bank' itself is suggestive of the private sector and free markets.

The state has no right to provide deposit insurance

If there is no deposit insurance then there will be no bailouts. Bailouts are a consequence of deposit insurance.

First past the post is good for Toryism and Toryists

First past the post is boring and ridiculous but not a contradiction.

We are not allowed to reform the voting system because of the Toryists. Toryists prevent reform of the voting system. They don’t want to let go. First past the post may have been useful in the past but we don’t need it any more. There is no need for first past the post.

First past the post is vulnerable to the big parties

Allowing people to be served by only one representative gives an opportunity to group voters who are prepared to collaborate.

First past the post is ineffective against socialism

It is only interesting to hear people talk about electoral reform if they are part of the government. Anarchists are not interesting on this topic because they have no power to change things.

There is no reason to care about quantitative easing

First past the post facilitates unpopular liberalism

Proportional representation does not exclude the risk of popular tyranny. There is a danger that people can get what they want.

Philosophical razor: The more important an issue is the less likely the general public will be aware of it

Proportional representation helps the economy

The biggest obstacle to economic freedom (in those countries which have it) is first past the post which makes it impossible to promote economic liberalism without endorsing other - perhaps objectionable - views. The centre-right party can be hijacked by social authoritarians. For which the only remedy is proportional representation.