The banks are not the state

We can regard fiat money as money issued by the state in return for security from crime. The state issues fiat money and we can think of these as tokens which represent a unit of security which has been provided by the state. So then it is normal and consistent for the state to be able to issue this type of fiat money. We would not expect a private firm such as a bank to have the same right to issue this money because it has not provided any such security to its customers. It has (perhaps) provided a free-market service such as banking but it has not provided any security in the manner that security is provided by the state and so we would not expect banks (or any private firm) to have the right to print fiat money. There is no reason for the state to give to the banks this special privilege. If banks do not provide an essential security to the people as is provided by the government then they have no reason to be able to print money. Banks are not part of the state and so it is inconsistent for them to be permitted to print money... only the state should be able to print fiat money because it is only the state which provides freedom. The state provides freedom so it should be allowed to print money but not the banks because they provide no freedom only a service... which is not the same thing. The banks are not the state and so they should not be allowed to print money.