Fiat money has no value without coercion

Nothing is good which requires coercion

Banks cannot fail if they have the ability to do fractional reserve banking. (They are not constrained by the market if they have deposit insurance.) Frb is synonymous with (is impossible without) deposit insurance.

If bank credit is not cash it would have no value

The evidence which establishes that banks print money is nothing to do with the government or the deposit guarantee (although those things may have relevance) it is simply that bank credit trades at parity with cash. There is no other possible explanation for the elevated price of bank credit other than it being cash. If banks do not print money then bank credit would have no value. Bank credit has value because it is cash.

The government is wrong to advocate fptp

Proportional Representation is a valid truth claim in that it cannot be reasonably refuted. If we tolerate democracy then there is no reason not to tolerate proportional representation. To deny an obvious positive truth claim is insanity and so we can say that the government is insane because of its position on fptp.

Anarchy is not better than democracy

If people are harmful with democracy they will be equally harmful without it so democracy (in itself) is never harmful. An uneducated population will be no more dangerous with democracy than they are without it. Anarchy is not an alternative to democracy because democracy is (a form of) anarchy itself.

Proportional Representation is bad for politicians

Proportional Representation is bad for politicians... which is a bad thing only if the politicians are more liberal than the population.

First past the post is an obstacle to freedom because it removes choice from the voter. Whether or not government is legitimate it is still a good idea to give people choice. If government is not legitimate then we can assume malign people people will be attracted to its power and so then we would want to make it as easy as possible for voters to remove politicians. To advocate pr does not require that we are enthusiastic about politicians... the reverse is true. Only if the voters are strongly collectivist and pro-government does pr become a risk because the natural resistance to the electorate provided by the parties (under fptp) prevents extreme socialism. If the politicians are more socialist than the electorate then pr is better. Only if politicians are better (more liberal) than the rest of the population is fptp a good idea.

It doesn't mean anything to be right-wing

Right-wing is not liberal so it doesn't mean anything. All collectivist ideologies are left-wing so to be right-wing is meaningless. It doesn't stand for anything.

Fptp protects the country from extreme socialism

It is a false claim to suggest that pr protects the country from socialism. Whilst it may be true that extreme socialists get isolated under pr... the country is still vulnerable to general socialism. With fptp extreme socialists must infiltrate the main parties before they can get power. The parties themselves provide an opposition to extreme forms of socialism.

There is no deposit insurance

Banks not government have control of the money supply because of fractional reserve banking.

Bank deposits are themselves a form of cash. The government forgives people who have trusted an insolvent bank... the government does not insist on narrow cash it will accept broad money so money is broad money not narrow money. If money is broad money then deposit insurance itself loses meaning because there is no requirement for insurance if we have been given what we are owed. If money is broad money there is no need for deposit insurance since it is redundant. Fractional reserve banking should be illegal not because there is deposit insurance (the term has become meaningless) but because money is broad money. There is nothing special about cash in the context of (in comparison to) bank deposits so frb should be illegal.

There is no deposit insurance in any meaningful sense.

Deposit insurance means that frb should be illegal

Fractional reserve banking is the reason we shouldn't have deposit insurance. We should not have deposit insurance if banks are allowed to engage in fractional reserve banking because otherwise this will result in inflation since people are indifferent between cash and government credit. Fractional reserve banking should be illegal if banks are guaranteed by the state.

If govt is good we would not have fptp and frb

The presence of first-past-the-post (fptp) and fractional reserve banking (frb) are evidence that government is not good. If government is good we would not have either fptp or frb.

If there is a govt then democracy is right-wing

If there is a government then democracy is liberating and pr is more democratic than fptp. Supporting (the introduction of) proportional representation is a right-wing position... to be right-wing is to support pr.

It makes no sense that the Tories are opposed to pr

If we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume supporters of the Tory party are more interested in economic freedom than the success of the Tory party... then it makes no sense for them to be opposed to pr. Proportional Representation enhances economic freedom because it gives voters more choice. Democratic freedom is a type of economic freedom. Since pr gives people more choice it makes no sense that a the party of economic freedom would be opposed to pr.

Banks are not allowed to fail

The difference between a bank and a normal business is that banks are not allowed to fail.

A currency with deposit insurance is not money

Housing is priced correctly... the only 'problem' is that they are very cheap to those who are prepared to get into debt. But they are still priced correctly because the right measure is not against an inflated currency but against hard assets. Priced against commodities houses are priced correctly... houses are themselves a commodity. The problem is not with houses but with a medium of exchange which can be inflated so easily by the banks. Because of this inflation it is true to say that banks don't print money because something which can be printed so easily ceases to be money. Because of deposit insurance paper currencies are not money. (Money doesn't have bank deposit insurance.) If a currency has deposit insurance it is not money.

Denialists have nothing to fear from bank reforms

There is no reason to be opposed to bank reform unless you are confused about how the system works. If you accept that banks print money we can assume you would want that to change otherwise you are being a hypocrite. If you deny that banks print money then there is no reason to oppose reform. It is only if you want banks to retain their right to print money that you would logically oppose reform... whether or not you are willing to accept that banks print money. It doesn’t make sense to deny that banks print money and at the same time oppose reform. If banks don’t print money there is nothing to fear in the reforms.

Denialists have nothing to fear from bank reforms... unless they were expecting a crash of the banking system.

If the central bank promise of deposit insurance is reliable* then banks print money

Deposit insurance from the state makes people relax about the solvency of their bank. Whilst a free market in banking is perfectly possible (with perhaps the problem of occasional small and insignificant bank runs happening from time to time) if there is deposit insurance then we should make sure to prevent bank lending of deposits.

If there is the promise of deposit insurance and fractional reserve banking (frb) is not illegal for those banks then one of two possible problems will emerge... if the promise is reliable and frb is not forbidden then effectively banks have been given a licence to print money. If the bank guarantee is unreliable then (because the false promise of deposit insurance gives people a sense of security with regard to their bank) an imbalance between deposits and reserves will grow leading to significant instability and the possibility of a huge crash.

If deposit insurance is given it should be given only to banks for which frb is illegal. If banks don't print money then the deposit insurance is an unreliable promise and there will be a huge financial crash. If banks don't print money there is no reason to not remove your money from most banks... there is no reason for there not to be a significant bank run.

*And there is no prohibition of fractional reserve banking.

Deposit insurance is a licence to print money

Three seemingly irrefutable statements with regard to banking are as follows...

i) Any institution with (state-provided) deposit insurance which expands its balance sheet in an unfunded* way is increasing the money supply and printing money.
ii) Banks have state-provided deposit insurance.
iii) Banks expand their balance sheet in an unfunded way.

Since all three of these statements are true we can deduce that banks are printing money.

*An unfunded balance sheet expansion is one where the liabilities of the firm are increased without an equivalent (and meaningful) increase in assets.

The central banks should stop bank lending

The central banks should prevent fractional reserve banking.

The purpose of the central bank is to make sure the deposit insurance provided by the state is not being exploited by the banking sector. If there is deposit insurance then it makes sense to have a central bank. Then if there is a central bank its role should be to prevent fractional reserve banking.

Proportional Representation is normal

Proportional Representation is obvious and uncontroversial... it is a surprise that pr is not more important in terms of any of the parties getting elected. It should be shocking that people would contemplate voting for a party that doesn't offer pr. Parties should endorse pr not (only) because they suffer from the lack of it themselves but primarily because it is normal to advocate such a system of elections.

It is unusual to advocate anything other than pr.

First past the post is theft of political power

Proportional Representation makes it more difficult for politicians to get into power they must appease the electorate not just their party. Because to appease the electorate is the valid route to democratic power then we can say that to gain power by any other means is a form of political theft. With pr political control rests with the people with fptp it rests with the politicians and the parties.

First past the post is a form of slavery

First past the post is a form of slavery... pr is freedom. If we cannot choose who makes decisions for us we are a slave. Democracy is the remedy for slavery but fptp is not democracy.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of slavery

Fractional reserve banking is worse than (and to the left of) communism. It is a form of slavery... With communism at least you are owned for the benefit of the group with frb you are owned for the benefit of someone else.

First past the post is a form of socialism

First past the post restricts voter choice which would make sense only if the political parties have an elevated right to control the lives of voters.

First past the post is bad for libertarians

First past the post is bad for libertarians or Tories who appease the centre-ground of the electorate by advocating mild socialism. There is a tension within the Tory party between those who think that they need to advocate socialism to get elected and those who wish to remain loyal to their libertarian principles. Libertarian Tories are stuck with the party and cannot leave due to fptp.

First past the post is bad for libertarians who must either vote for policies they do not support or have their vote wasted.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of taxation

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than a form of tax.

Governments are not legitimate if they are not pr

First past the post is a communist dictatorship

First past the post is a form of communist dictatorship.

Georgism is a conservative philosophy

Georgism (or even geolibertarianism) is a political philosophy which is entirely consistent with conservatism. Georgism is concerned with extracting the best possible use from natural resources which is a conservative idea. If Georgism is not conservative then conservatism is not concerned with the best use of the land and is therefore wasteful and negligent. Conservatives are Georgists even if they do not realise it.

To be employed is not to be owned

To be employed is nothing more than to sell your time. You are not being owned by your employer they are renting your time.

Definition of fractional reserve banking: It is when banks are protected from failure by the state

It should be illegal for banks to print money...

It should be illegal for banks to print money because (if) government has a responsibility to its subjects.

Politicians are happy to guess with people's lives

Fractional reserve banking is a mystery to almost all members of parliament and yet they are willing to pass laws. Most MPs do not have a complete picture of the world (due to their ignorance of banking) and yet they are willing to make laws based on what they know to be an incomplete picture... for we know if we are unsure about something. We cannot lie to ourselves.

There can be no behaviour more arrogant than taking a position of authority based on knowledge we know to be incomplete.

There are no firms because groups do not exist

For the purposes of this piece we need to define two separate forms of institutional relationship in the economy; the collective farm and the antagonistic exchange.

Definition of collective farm: This type of economic entity is one where participants are invited to join a business and are rewarded to the extent that they have met their obligations. Rewards are shared fairly. There is a risk that the collective farm will not make a profit and then its members will face poverty.

Definition of antagonistic exchange: In this relationship each member wants what the other has and is willing to trade but no more than that. Purely their own needs are met with no interest in the well-being of the other. This is the type of trade we are familiar with in market anarchy.

The appealing advantage of the collective farm is that we are not (at least initially) excluded from entry. We have every right to join and remain a member provided we do our share of the work... unfortunately the notion of a collective farm is an illusion since there are no groups... collective government doesn't work. Even in a business which has the appearance of a collective enterprise each agent is an individual.

No firm or business can be thought of as a collective farm because groups do not exist.

First past the post should be illegal because it leads to the emergence of two dominant parties

The emergence of a stable two-party equilibrium means that first past the post (fptp) should be illegal. Under fptp a stable two-party system emerges because of tactical voting. Due to precedent voters know that only one of two possible parties has a reasonable chance of winning and so a vote for any other party is a wasted vote.

Frb is fraud unless there is deposit insurance

Free market fractional reserve banking is fraud so then... fractional reserve banking and deposit insurance are synonymous (given an absence of any prohibition against bank lending).

Fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting (because of deposit insurance) unless banks can fail. If banks can't fail then fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting.

Fractional reserve banking is always fraudulent

Fractional reserve banking is a misnomer since it is not banking in the genuine sense (given that with banking people expect to be able to get their money immediately always). It cannot exist in a free market... it is fraud if people cannot get their money back when they expect to be able to. If there is a risk of a bank run and - significantly - people might not get their money back at the schedule they expect then this is not banking but fraud. If there is no risk of a bank run such as this we are not dealing with fractional reserve banking.

By definition fractional reserve banking entails the risk of the customer not getting their money back contrary to expectations (if the possibility of a delay is expected then the customer does not have demand deposits and there is no fraud) hence the practice is fraud.

The government is opposed to free market banking

Banks are allowed to increase the money supply

Banks with deposit insurance should not be allowed to make loans.

It's strange that banks are allowed to make loans

It's unusual that banks are allowed to make loans given the existence of deposit insurance.

There is no reason for the government to let banks make loans... it would be normal for lending to be prohibited given that deposit insurance exists. If there is deposit insurance we can expect (it is normal) for bank lending to be prohibited.

It's weird (inconsistent*) that the government would let banks make loans given they have deposit insurance. If banks have deposit insurance then when they extend credit this increases the money supply. There is no reason the government would want to give this privilege to the banks.

*If the government wants to increase the money supply it can print money (and spend it) itself.

The government should not protect the banks

The government should not be involved in banking for the reason that under the rules of fractional reserve banking it is possible to remain insolvent for a long period of time.

First past the post should be illegal

First past the post should be against the constitution.

There is no argument to be made in favour of pr

First past the post should be illegal but laws made against the government are a waste of time...

It is only possible to make an argument in favour of proportional representation if we accept the validity and effectiveness of constitutions (written against the government). Since constitutions do not work (laws made against governments are meaningless) we cannot make an argument in favour of pr.