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.