First past the post is good for the political parties

Under pr libertarians can get elected

Under pr libertarians as well as tories can get elected.

First past the post is bad for the country

First past the post is unpatriotic (and bad for the country) because it gives legislative power to politicians who would not have been chosen under an equitable system. The people do not get what they want and in a democracy this is bad for the country.

It doesn’t make sense to vote for the big parties

Since we do not have pr we know that neither of the main two big parties support pr. It makes no sense to vote for either of the main big parties because voting against pr is not voting in your own interests. It only makes sense to support a (smaller) party that supports pr... until we get pr.

It doesn’t make sense to vote for one of the bigger parties.

The government balance sheet is destroyed by frb

Fractional reserve banking is offensive only to the government no one else... it is their balance sheet which is being ruined. The taxpayer is not the government and has no concern about frb.

Frb should be illegal if there is not a free market

Fractional reserve banking should be illegal if bank liabilities are shared with the taxpayer.

If there is not free-market banking then frb should be illegal.

It would be good to have a full reserve currency

It would be good to have a fiat currency which does not subsidise the banks.

Supporters of frb are not libertarians

Supporters of fractional reserve banking are not libertarians.

Fractional reserve banking is bad for capitalism

Definition of communism: The government stifles the work of good firms to prevent bad firms from failing.

If bad firms are prevented from failing (as with fractional reserve banking) then this is detrimental for the rest of the economy. Communism is bad for capitalism. Fractional reserve banking is communism.

The government hurts good firms by protecting the banks.

Free market is the same as full reserve banking

Only an insane person would let banks print money

Fiat currencies are not good if we have frb

For fiat currencies to work they require that counterfeiting is illegal. Fiat currencies are not good if banks can print money.

The tragedy of the commons applies everywhere

‘The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.’

All resources are limited... the whole world is common so the tragedy of the commons applies everywhere.

If individual people are greedy and take too much this will always be to the detriment of the group. Whilst it cannot be consumed or depleted... land is a shared limited resource which must be used (claimed) with reservation and with deference to the group. Just because a resource is not given freely (common) and instead is owned privately doesn’t mean the tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply. The tragedy exists for all assets. We must be considerate of our neighbours both in the private market and the public market.

The tragedy of the commons applies not only to the commons.

If fptp is tolerable then so too is pr

There is nothing wrong with pr that is not also a problem with fptp.

Tories hate pr because they hate freedom

It is a lie when Tories claim to want small government and freedom... if they did they would advocate electoral reform.

Proportional representation is never bad

Anarchist critics of proportional representation claim that all democracy is bad... but if democracy is bad the alternative would be worse. If people are so nasty that democracy is a threat to liberty then life without democracy would be no better. Democracy is never a bad thing and sometimes it is a good thing.

The fptp parties are not in favour of freedom

The fptp parties cannot claim to support freedom if they oppose fair votes. The test of whether a political party is truly in favour of freedom is whether or not they support fair votes.

Democratic freedom is supported by fair votes

It is a contradiction for a party of the right (who ostensibly advocate freedom) to be against fair votes... because we expect them to be logical and pragmatic. We do not necessarily expect left-wing parties to be so rigorous and pragmatic so for them to support an unfair voting system is (perhaps) less surprising.

Being a Tory is not being a Libertarian

If you vote Tory you are not a Libertarian the two are incompatible. Libertarians do not support the Tory party.

Fair votes is not worse than first past the post

Proportional representation is not worse than first past the post but we must make this complaint against communists and not libertarians.

Government is (essentially) communism and the default party of power in a two-party system is the centre-left party. Arguments for the reform of the electoral system must appeal the centre-left party. It is possible for pr to appeal to even a communist. Presumably the communist (however naive or deluded they may be) believes their actions to be to the advantage of the people... otherwise they are being a hypocrite. Given that communists are being sincere it would not be a contradiction then for more democracy to also be to the advantage of the people. A communist (who accepts democracy) would be a hypocrite to reject pr.

More democracy leading to the risk of more government (whilst erroneous - pr leads to less (but more intelligent) government) is not even a contradiction to the claim that pr is better. Because we are making this claim against communists. Proportional representation is a way to reduce communism... only if fptp is an effective constraint of government would pr be worse.

First past the post proves government is bad

The existence of first past the post proves government is bad. Only parties which advocate electoral reform can be considered nice.

Critics of pr are afraid that people might like it

Anarchist critics of pr are afraid that people might like it.

Brave politicians endorse electoral reform

If we stand as a candidate for elected office we accept the rules of democracy. We are being fearful if we do not extend an equal chance to smaller parties... we are being fearful and selfish.

Proportional representation is bad for socialism

The Conservative party do not hate Labour otherwise they would introduce pr. Support for pr is evidence of dislike for Labour.

Electoral reform is conservative not progressive

Proportional representation is not progressive where the word progressive is synonymous with socialist. In that sense pr is conservative because it tends to produce smaller (and more efficient) government.

Fractional reserve banking is bad only for fiat

It is only because we use a fiat currency that banks are able to extract wealth. Hard currencies protect people from the banks.

Frb is a ponzi scheme pretending to be a bank

Sometimes ponzi schemes pretend to be banks

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than a harmless ponzi scheme unless the customer is ignorant of the arrangement. It is possible that the customer assumes (something like) full reserve banking in which case the bank (the ponzi scheme) is taking unfair advantage of - exploiting - this ignorance.

The banking system needs to be reformed

If banks do not cause inflation the banking system is perfect.

The authorities deny banking causes inflation

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” (It is not possible in logic to establish a positive truth.)

Definition: Bank means only a full reserve bank

The term fractional reserve banking doesn’t mean anything.

Anarchists are opposed to the banking system

Because the government supports the banks... it is not possible to be a supporter of the government (a socialist) and not a supporter of the banks. (Supporters of the government universally support the banks.) If banks are not free to fail then all socialists are supporters of the banking system.

If socialists support the banking system then anarchists oppose it.

Banks are part of the public sector

Banks have deposit insurance which makes them part of the public sector. If banks could fail they would be private firms but instead they have deposit protection from the state.

It’s unfair that banks are protected from insolvency

Fractional reserve banking causes inflation not because people are aware of the deposit guarantee for bank credit (and have an understanding of the system) but because banks can’t go bust.

People don’t need to think or assume the bank is acting like a full reserve bank they only need to know (and trust) that bank deposits are always redeemable for cash. And their trust is well-placed if the government has made such a promise. If the government announces that some fiscal media (such as bank credit) is always redeemable for cash then there will be inflation not because the value of cash is known to derive from government coercion but because cash can now be worth no more than bank credit. Someone holding credit can now compete equally with holders of cash (when making purchases) because the seller of the goods will have no reason to differentiate between the two and prefer cash. The ability of the government to make good on its promise is sufficient whether or not the value of cash derives (or is known to derive) from exclusivity or government coercion.

If they have deposit insurance banks will remain cash flow solvent even when they are balance sheet insolvent.

The insolvency of the banking sector is not a justifiable reason to cause inflation and increase the money supply. It’s unfair that people who use reliable (full reserve) banks have their savings stolen via inflation because others have used an unreliable and insolvent bank. Bailouts and protection from bank insolvency is unfair to savers.

It is the responsibility of the banks themselves not to increase the money supply even though they can

Like counterfeiting, increasing the money supply (by legal means) is a way to profit through the direct extraction of wealth from others. It does not provide something objectively valuable as all other forms of legal trade do. With the exception of banking all free market activities add to the wealth of the nation or society within which they are located. Banking (though legal) is a drain on the community.

Reform of the banking system is impossible

The state is not intelligent enough to do anything about the problems of the banking system.

Full reserve banking is the only form of banking which should be tolerated by the state

Since all banks are guaranteed by the state - private banking is illegal - there should be no fractional reserve banking. Otherwise there is inflation. We should only tolerate full reserve banking.

Frb should be illegal if there is deposit insurance

If banks are (legally) able to make loans with customer deposits then deposit insurance will be inflationary. Fractional reserve banking should be illegal because otherwise banks will cause inflation (and steal from savers) when they make loans. Without deposit insurance fractional reserve banking is impossible... the only valid form of banking in a free market is full reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking is impossible in a free market and with deposit insurance (as it always is) it should be illegal because of the inflation.

Fractional reserve banking (which never exists - is not possible - without deposit insurance) should be illegal. If banks have deposit insurance it should be illegal for them to make loans. Fractional reserve banking relies on government deposit insurance and should be illegal. It should be illegal for banks to make loans (to do frb) if they have deposit insurance. If frb is possible (there is deposit insurance) it should be illegal.

Fractional reserve banking should either be impossible (as in the free market) or illegal. If it is not impossible (deposit insurance makes fractional reserve banking possible) it should be illegal.

The govt doesn’t realise that banking is inflationary

How to explain banking to a child: The government doesn’t realise that fractional reserve banking in conjunction with deposit insurance is inflationary. When we explain something to a child we (try to keep it simple and) are as generous as possible to all agents.

First past the post elections result in vote dilution

Vote dilution is the phenomenon of larger parties being disproportionately represented (in the legislature) in the outcome of first-past-the-post elections.

Dilution: (noun) The action of making something weaker in force, content, or value.

Vote dilution is evident in the outcome of the 2010 United Kingdom general election. The Liberal Democrats achieved 6,836,248 votes compared to 10,703,654 for the Conservative party and 8,606,517 for Labour. This resulted in 57 seats (for the Lib Dems), 306 seats and 258 seats respectively. Accordingly the Liberal Democrat vote dilution factor is 3.5 which is (6,836,248)/(10,703,654 + 8,606,517) divided by (57)/(306 + 258).

The equivalent vote dilution figure for the Greens (who achieved one seat in the Brighton Pavilion constituency) is 7.7.

Tolerance for fptp is tolerance for the social right

Since the social authoritarian (religious) right is not open to argument (they have faith) our only option is to wait for them to become enlightened and get on with life. There is no point arguing with them.

First past the post is a presidential system...

First past the post is a presidential system and it is not democracy. Proportional representation is less intolerable than first past the post.

We should have no MPs if there is not fair votes

Without fair votes there should be no members of parliament.

Proportional representation is good for anarchists

Electoral reform is good for people who do not like the state.

Fptp enables the govt to ignore the electorate

Government don't need to listen because of first past the post.

There is nothing you can do about bank insurance

There is nothing you can do to prevent fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance apart from electing a new government.

First past the post makes democracy meaningless

The test of a voting system is proportionality

A good democracy is like a good market: there is much choice. First past the post excludes the market from the voting system.

People can see full reserve banking unlike frb

Deposit insurance is evidence of govt ignorance

Only an idiot would provide state deposit insurance to banks.

Bank inflation shows that government is ignorant

If all fires produce smoke then the absence of smoke indicates the absence of a fire. The absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence if we can be sure to have checked every other possibility that exists. What remains is the empty truth.

The government does not understand banking (and how banking works) otherwise it would have fixed it by now.

More democracy is better than some democracy

Democracy is not about promoting good people it is about blocking idiots. Proportional representation is more effective than fptp at blocking idiots. People don’t like government so more democracy leads to less government. If (more) democracy is bad then people are socialists. Only if people are socialists is more democracy bad.

Fractional reserve banking is not a good idea

The money supply should be managed and controlled by the government alone.

Banks can print money due to deposit insurance

Deposit insurance has no meaning if it doesn’t mean banks can print money. Government credit is always money. Deposit insurance turns private credit into public credit which is always money. Government credit can be printed by banks.

Even if some inflation is required there is no reason it should come from banks.

There is no reason for banks to be exempt from legislation against counterfeiting. Only non-banks are prevented from causing inflation. Everyone should be able to cause inflation if banks can.

Deposit insurance is theft if inflation is theft

If inflation is theft then deposit insurance (in combination with fractional reserve banking) is also theft. The only reason deposit insurance is not theft is because inflation is not theft.

If inflation is theft then so too is (would be) deposit insurance.

Banks should not be able to increase money supply

Frb should be illegal for guaranteed banks

Banks should not be able to make loans (with customer demand deposits) if they are given deposit insurance.

Questions can be used to exclude the insane

Concerning the definition of a question: A question is (discovered) when we have arrived at a logical situation where two things cannot both be true... they are incompatible. We ask which is more important and to be retained. In logic this is known as the exclusive or (the exclusive disjunction) and it is given the symbol XOR. It is the opposite of equivalence it is inequivalence (a logical function whose output is true if the inputs (at least one of which is true) are not the same... otherwise the output is false).

We can use a question to make someone aware of a bigger (more significant) truth claim which is in conflict with their prevailing beliefs. We can use questions to establish truth claims.

Bank inflation proves that government is coercive

If legal tender is valued for its own sake and not because of taxation then deposit insurance will have no bearing on inflation. It is because the government taxes the population that cash has monetary value. Inflation caused by deposit insurance proves the government is coercive. If the government is not coercive (cash is valued for a reason other than tax) deposit insurance would not alter the price of cash... cash would remain exclusive.

It is because people do not value cash for its own sake but because of tax that deposit insurance causes inflation.

The inflationary nature of deposit insurance proves that government is coercive.

Banks are allowed to increase the money supply

The monetary system is insane. It is insane to give banks deposit insurance and then not to prohibit fractional reserve lending.

To be against democracy is to be against the people

Democracy assumes the people know better than the government... whether that is in favour of liberalism or socialism. To be against democracy is to say that government knows best.

The banking system is owned by the government

Banks can't crash because they are part of the state

Problem for the state: Banks print money because they are part of the public sector

Banks are able to print money because their liabilities are guaranteed by the state. A method by which this can be exploited is as follows...

i) Acquire a banking licence from the state which guarantees deposits.
ii) Have an accomplice deposit at your bank a sum of cash and create an equivalent deposit account for them... as is the normal practice.
iii) Return to the customer the same sum of cash but without cancelling the deposit account. (By way of repayment for making the original deposit.) This step is the crucial step which is unusual in that normally the deposit account would be cancelled.*
iv) Your accomplice now has an equal amount of cash to when they started but also they have a bank (state) deposit from nowhere.

*The bank has the ability to use reserves which ‘should’ belong to the government since it is the government which has issued liabilities in exchange for the deposit.

There should be no liabilities on a balance sheet

The balance sheet should contain only assets and the ownership structure... liabilities should not form part of the balance sheet.

It doesn’t make sense to provide deposit insurance

Fptp is war proportional representation is peace

The best way to prevent socialism is proportional representation. To be concerned about socialism is to advocate pr. To be silent on fptp is to not be concerned about socialism.

Government is not logical because we are equal

Democracy is a performative contradiction because it firstly gives everyone an equal vote but then forms a government which treats people as subordinates. There is no reason to have a government. If government is necessary it will be necessary whether or not people want it... so there is no point having government. If people think government is necessary there is no point having elections because the people will perform the actions of their desired government themselves. There is no point giving people a choice over something which is necessary.

In government groups are better than individuals

Where government is concerned a council of leaders is better than a president because less harm can be achieved.

Proportional representation is not anarchy

Proportional representation gives power to the people not govt.

First past the post is not a problem for the left

Proportional representation is good for the liberal right because they can vote for the party of their choice and still reject socialism. With pr all votes negatively influence the candidates we did not select... all votes are tactical. Under fptp only a vote for one of the main parties is tactical. Since the left is more comfortable with collectivism and grouping together fptp is less of an obstacle for them. They have no difficulty in voting for the leading party of the left. For liberals and libertarians it is not so easy for them to vote for the mainstream party of the right and so their vote could be wasted. Because the left is less offended by tactical voting fptp favours the left wing.

Fptp is the reason the government do not listen

The government doesn’t care about the electorate because of fptp.

Since all opinions are equally valid then pr is best

A democracy is like a courtroom and each vote should count equally... whether we are on the jury or in the ballot box.

Fptp is delegated democracy whereas pr is direct democracy.