Fractional reserve banking is torture

We can define torture in this context to mean harm imposed on someone by the state for no reason. It is different from the normal execution of justice. Torture by the government is imposed arbitrarily.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of torture because it causes harm to people for no reason. We assume (as we can) that there is a fiat currency in place and that it is possible for the state to subsidise fractional reserve banking. (If there is no fiat currency then the government cannot subsidise fractional reserve banking.) So then it is possible for the state to enable the banks to inflate the money supply. This is torture because it removes value from the rest of the population who do not print money. Since there is a fiat currency in existence this extraction of wealth cannot be avoided by anyone and so this hurts everyone in the economy. There is no reason for this subsidy of the banking system via deposit insurance and so by the definition above it is torture.

The government bans things

We do not have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot do just as we do not have a right to tell them how to behave. Prohibitionism is inherently authoritarian because it relies on the state having authority over the individual. Since in a free country we are free to act however we like provided we do not hurt others then prohibitionism is inherently illiberal and statist. Authoritarianism is wrong because we have control and responsibility for our own lives. Prohibitionism is inherently authoritarian and for that reason it is wrong. If there is no government then prohibitionism would be impossible because no one would take instructions from another person. Prohibitionism relies on the existence of the state to be justified and for that reason it is false. Without the government there would be no prohibition of drugs and so there should be no prohibition of drugs. Without a state there would be no prohibition of drugs and we would be free to consume whatever we like.

Fractional reserve banking is bad

It is bad for humanity if a bank or any organisation is immune from failure and able to inflate the money supply. If someone (apart from the government) is able to inflate the money supply it is likely they will do so meaning that they will be able to acquire a surfeit of property and assets. This arrangement is bad overall and it could even be argued that it is bad for the agency which can counterfeit the currency because they are destroying the planet. (Being rich in hell is worse than being relatively poor in a healthy world.) Even if being able to inflate the currency is not bad for those able to do it it is certainly bad overall so then it is better (overall) not to have state-guaranteed fractional reserve banking.

Inflation is bad for the poor

If banks cannot fail this is a kind of communism because the liabilities are shared. If the liabilities are shared this means that banks are printing money because socialised liabilities are the same as state credit which is (presently) money. Communism is wrong because eventually the state cannot support its people and everyone will starve. If there is a state then it has a duty and an obligation not to be coercive. The state can only be defensive. The problem with deposit insurance is that it relies on coercion from the state. It is state banking.

The truth is not grey

Taxation is aggressive but it also violates the categorical imperative. In a strictly rights-based system of morality we might argue that since we have a right to our own labour we have a right not to be taxed. And whilst this is enough to demonstrate the invalidity of tax we can further show that it violates the categorical imperative because it cannot apply universally. If taxes apply universally then everything is owned by the state and we have communism. But communism doesn't work (which we know from experience) so the state cannot own everything and so it cannot tax completely. Since it cannot tax completely it should not tax at all since otherwise it would be violating the categorical imperative. (All or nothing.) We can say that that which cannot apply universally should not apply at all and so then there should be no tax. If the government cannot own everything it should own nothing and there should be no taxation.

Public banking is not essential

Only essential services should be guaranteed by the state. And whilst it will always be a controversial discussion very few people hold the view that public banking is something which is essential. Since very few people argue that the market is incapable of providing banking then we can deduce that the state should not protect failing banks and that there should be no deposit insurance. The concept of deposit insurance (and all state subsidies) relies on the assumption that society is better off with a particular service being provided to all (for free). But there is no reason to think that people need subsidised banking... since there is no reason to subsidise banks then they should be free to fail since it is expensive to subsidise banks. Unless deposit insurance is required it should not exist because it is a cost to the taxpayer and hence society. Only essential services should be subsidised (because to do so is expensive) and since the market is able to provide good banking there should be no reason to have deposit insurance.

Drug use is not a crime

No one has a right to be a prohibitionist because drug use is not a crime. By definition we cannot do a crime to ourselves because crimes involve more than one person. Even if someone holds the view that to use 'drugs' is a mistake we do not have the right to impose our view of mistakes onto other people... people have a right to make mistakes in your eyes. It doesn't matter if we think someone is doing harm to themselves with their use of drugs... they have the perfect right to hurt themselves. We do not have a right to impose our view of a good way to live onto other people.