First past the post concentrates political power in the hands of one person

Political power is shared evenly under proportional representation. Proportional representation is shared representation.

Banks supported by deposit insurance should either be reformed or allowed to fail

The government is printing money when it makes a loan.

First past the post governments are illegitimate

Governments elected under proportional representation have more legitimacy than those elected under first past the post.

Proportional Representation makes politicians more accountable to the electorate

Government deposit insurance enables banks to print money

Fractional reserve banking is not a justification for deposit insurance

We need to stop fractional reserve banking before we can get rid of deposit insurance. Fractional reserve banking is the reason banks can’t fail.

Fractional reserve banking destroys the value of cash

Cash might not be such a terrible investment if not for fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking makes cash a terrible investment. Cash would hold value if we had full reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking enables government and borrowers to steal from savers through inflation.

Deposit insurance is communism

If banks can’t fail they cannot be considered to be part of the free market... they are communist.

Democracies are legitimate if they are proportional

To be considered legitimate democracies must be proportional... and proportionality is a requirement for democracies to be considered legitimate. If democracies are not proportional then they are not legitimate. First past the post democracies are not legitimate.

Proportional representation is anarcho capitalism

The parliament is redundant with first past the post which makes it similar to a democratic monarchy

There is little point having a parliament if members must be (are willing to be) loyal to their parties. But with fptp... at least the party is able to hold their leader to account to some extent. A parliament which is elected directly using pr has more ability to reject bad laws because members have no loyalty to the leader. Voting against the legislation is not a matter of rebellion. Under fptp bad laws get passed because loyalists vote through legislation without any scrutiny. If it’s better for voters not to have a choice then it is better not to have democracy. First past the post is anti-democratic.

Proportional Representation would remove yet more power from the government

First past the post is good for people who like dysfunctional and adversarial politics. It creates confusion (a false sense of support for the leading parties) and keeps reality and the truth from being revealed.

Government is the most senior of all criminals...

Tactical voting ceases to be a consideration for voters under proportional representation

Proportional representation would remove the need for tactical voting... Parties with a higher proportion of the popular vote than is held in parliament (by their politicians) should have their voting power enhanced to a proportional level. There is no reason for all members of parliament to have equal voting power given that they have not been elected via proportional representation.

Central banks enable fractional reserve banking

Without the central bank fractional reserve banking would be impossible for commercial banks. Central banks are unnecessary and do not need to be part of the public sector.

Banks with deposit insurance can print money

Commercial bank credit is not real money because banks don’t have deposit insurance. Central bank credit is not real money either.

The big political parties endorse first past the post for no other reason than selfishness

First past the post is communism because it lets in socialist parties.

There would be no gross domestic product if charities provided everything

People would not trade if everything is provided for free by charities... so gross domestic product (gdp) is a measurement of the extent to which people cannot get what they want through charitable means. Gdp measures the extent to which charities do not provide what people need.

Socialism is impossible under governance by pr

Parties of the left do well only because of first past the post.

Proportional Representation would be terrible because we would not know whom to vote for

Sarcasm: Proportional Representation would be chaos and anarchy.

Proportional Representation would be used by an intelligent government

An intelligent government would not use first past the post... The use of first past the post as a voting system is evidence of the stupidity of the government because it doesn’t work. First past the post doesn’t work and yet the government continues to use it which is evidence of their stupidity. First past the post does not reflect the intentions of the electorate.

No taxation without proportional representation

There is never anyone good to vote for because of first past the post

The main two positions will always be dominated by parties which pander to the dogma prevalent at the time. Bigots will not be (cannot be) excluded from holding power. The reason we cannot exclude bigots is first past the post. Only a bigot of one form or another would defend fptp against proportional representation. The outcomes of (unproportional) first past the post elections are not legitimate because they are not proportional. The only legitimate electoral systems are those which give proportional outcomes. There can be no representation (and therefore no fair taxes) without proportionality and so (unproportional and unfair) first past the post is not legitimate. Any government (taxation) derived by first past the post is not legitimate because it is not representative. There can be no (legitimate) taxation without proportionality in the democratic outcome.

If we think government wants small government then first past the post is good

First past the post gives more power to the government. It is good to have small government so unless (if it is not true that) government is more likely to choose small government (than the electorate) then pr is better.

Fractional reserve banking is unfair but not a crime

Fractional reserve banking is not a crime but it is unfair...

It is not consistent for banks to be able to inflate the money supply if counterfeiting is illegal

If counterfeiting cash banknotes is a crime then so too is (the combination of) deposit insurance and fractional reserve banking.

Public banks should not practice fractional reserve banking because this causes inflation and creates debt

If inflation is seen as a desirable event then there are other more efficient ways to cause inflation such as printing money into the economy. Public practice of fractional reserve banking creates more debt which is not desirable. Another factor to consider is that the government is financially motivated to cause inflation and debt with the present system. There is a profit motive when the motive of the government should be nothing other than the public interest.

Deposit insurance is a problem... we are not free yet

We are not free if banks have deposit insurance. If banks have deposit insurance than the government is a bank (for profit) which provides other services... If the government is not for profit then deposit insurance would not exist. Deposit insurance is how the government makes money.

There is no reason to treat banks differently from other businesses

Many business might be considered to be a utility (such as supermarkets or appliance manufacturers) but that is not a reason to give them extra protections... Member banks should not have been given deposit insurance by the central bank. Such a practice should be against the constitution. According to the constitution the central bank should not be allowed to give deposit insurance to the member banks.

Fractional reserve banking is always possible even in a free market if the bank has access to the safe

It is only because of deposit insurance that fractional reserve banking is so prevalent. There is no incentive to choose a full reserve bank (the incentive has been removed) since a crash will be averted. Deposit insurance turns bank credit into money because it prevents a crash. Bank credit is money because of deposit insurance. Deposit insurance is the reason banks can’t crash and bank credit is money.

There is no need for proportional representation

...but first past the post makes it easy for politicians to ignore voters.

Those who do not support electoral reform are not progressive

First past the post seems more benign than it is because of its name

First past the post is an empty phrase which communicates nothing. We can assume that the winner of an election will be the person who comes first... the issue with fptp and the difference between that method and others is that the winner (the first) takes all. It could be called first takes all. First past the post sounds innocent of any bias or iniquity because there is no objection to the first person winning as no one would want the second or third to win. The problem is that the winner takes everything. This name removes any criticism and negative connotations from its description making it (falsely) seem benign.

Taxation is worse when the government demands paper currencies... instead of hard currencies

Proportional Representation devolves power from the leader of the government to the people

Proportional Representation ensures freedom because there is more choice... unless people do not want to be free for reasons of inequality. All government is bad but pr would be less bad than first-past-the-post. First-past-the-post protects rich people who have land...

It’s pointless having individual members of parliament if they are elected under fptp

The only reason government is generally able to establish a majority (and is not always forced into a coalition) is the fptp voting system.

Fractional reserve banking can never be a free market phenomenon...

...and for that reason there is no such thing as fractional reserve banking... the deposits are always fully backed with government credit. At least the banks are democratically accountable.

Deposit insurance destroys the value of money

Inflation is caused by nothing other than deposit insurance... and printing money. Deposit insurance turns deposits into real money.

State deposit insurance makes it easy to get money

State deposit insurance is always inflationary... In a taxed economy being protected from insolvency means that your credit will always have value... you can print money.

Poor people cannot afford a place to live because of deposit insurance

Deposit insurance hurts poor people because it means they cannot afford anywhere to live. The housing crisis is caused by deposit insurance.

Proportional Representation gives power to individual members of parliament not the parties

Removing first past the post would collapse the party system like removing deposit insurance would collapse the banking system.

First past the post is simply the illusion of democracy at the constituency level

First past the post is a presidential rather than parliamentary system. First past the post is analogous to electing a city mayor for prime minister. We do not elect a parliament (as we would with proportional representation) just a prime minister... The eventual prime minister is not chosen by the MPs but instead the parties and the electorate.

The government guarantee of bank deposits means that cash is not the only form of money

Proportional Representation is not a threat to economic liberalism

We don’t need first past the post

The government is not good otherwise it would introduce proportional representation

Only a good government would (a bad government would not) introduce proportional representation. The introduction of proportional representation would be evidence of the government being good.

Proportional Representation makes it more easy to defend yourself against the state

First Past The Post makes it more difficult to defend yourself against the state.

There is no better voting method than the single non transferable vote

Proportional Representation gives more power to the MPs and the voter and less to the Prime Minister

Definition: Tactical parties are those which prosper due to the iniquities of the voting system

It is normal to be an advocate of monetary reform

Free market banking is not possible until the bank deposits are monetised

The discrepancy between narrow and broad money must be resolved before the removal of deposit insurance. The only way to get rid of deposit insurance and avoid a crash is monetisation. Bank credit must be monetised prior to the removal of deposit insurance otherwise there will be a crash of the banking system.

It’s not consistent for banks to have private profits if their liabilities are guaranteed by the taxpayer

The banks could not survive as they are now without the state.

There is no difference between having deposit insurance and being able to print money

Definition: Fractional reserve banking requires the customer to be ignorant of the arrangement

If the customer doesn’t mind the risk of having the money loaned out - and is aware of it - this is not fractional reserve banking which requires the customer to be ignorant of the arrangement.

Without socialist deposit insurance the financial system would collapse

The word ‘proportional’ in the term proportional representation is redundant

Only proportional democracies are representative (all representative democracies are proportional) so the word ‘proportional’ in the term proportional representation is redundant... To use the term proportional representation implies that the existing system is also representative when (if it is not proportional) it is not.

Fractional reserve banking is subsidised by socialist deposit insurance

Fractional reserve banking exploits a loophole in the law... and is similar to tax avoidance

Fractional reserve banking is a confidence trick

Fractional reserve banking is an insidious and unnoticed type of theft.

Deposit insurance destroys the value of money if fractional reserve banking is tolerated

Because of the legality of fractional reserve banking... deposit insurance destroys the value of money.

Fractional reserve banking causes poverty and inequality

Fractional reserve banking transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Fractional reserve banking is trading whilst insolvent

None other than... the central bank guarantees the deposits of commercial banks

It is not a government guarantee.

First past the post is a form of communism

Only the central bank and not the government is responsible for fractional reserve banking

Libertarians have no chance of representation with first past the post

Deposit insurance should not be given to banks with fractional reserves

Banks which practice fractional reserve banking (fractional reserve banks) should not be given deposit insurance.

Fractional reserve banking is an attempt by the government to perform perpetual motion

Fractional reserve banking is impossible without deposit insurance.

Proportional Representation doesn’t force people to vote for the main parties

Communism is similar to fractional reserve banking with deposit insurance

There is no reason for the government to be involved in banking services

Banks with deposit insurance can’t make loans without increasing the money supply

The state is protected from democracy by first past the post

Stealing is wrong even if it’s called fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve debts are invalid because the lender retains use of the item

Work would be more rewarding without fractional reserve banking

The value of labour is destroyed because of fractional reserve banking.

Deposit insurance is inflationary

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than a ponzi scheme

Deposit insurance should be against the constitution

Fractional reserve banking destroys currencies

Central banks and commercial banks are the same

Borrowing money is like short selling but with cash

Securities lending is similar in form to fractional reserve banking

Stocks hold their value much better than cash because they are not loaned out by banks

The government are in denial over the nature of banking and money

The government do not realise that guaranteed bank credit is money. If they did they would seek to prevent further inflation of the money supply unless banks are special. If banks are not special they should not have the privilege of being able inflate the money supply.

The government should protect its people from unsound banking

The government should have protected its people from unsound banking.

It’s not illegal for banks to print money

Fiat currencies cannot be printed by banks

There are no public utilities so it’s fine if banks print money

If money is a national utility... the banks should not be able to print bank credit

Money is not only cash but also government credit

No one should be able to have a banking licence

Disobedient MPs who do not respect the party whip cause chaos

Proportional Representation takes into account the views of people who do not support the mainstream parties

Mainstream parties are not threatened by fptp even if they are weird

Proportional Representation is the only system which allows people a say

Government is the legal exemption for those who seek to initiate force

There are no governments and there is no money

It’s not fair that only banks are allowed to print money

Given that for most people counterfeiting is illegal... it’s remarkable and amazing that there are no laws preventing banks from printing money.

Inflation demonstrates that... cash has no more value than being acceptable to the government

Unless the government is willing to monetise the difference (between cash and credit) it is best not to give banks deposit insurance.

Democracies love the banks otherwise there would be no deposit insurance

Without deposit insurance banks would be subject to the rigours of the market.

Deposit insurance enables fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking would be reputationally costly (difficult to practice) if not for deposit insurance.

There is no disincentive against fractional reserve banking if there is deposit insurance

Without deposit insurance there would be a reputational incentive to practice sound banking.

The danger of deposit insurance is that... there is nothing wrong with banks making loans

Deposit insurance removes the disincentive against fractional reserve banking.

Higher prices are a result of inflation not magic

We have full reserve banking if both fiat and the government guarantee of bank deposits exists

Printing cash by the government is not worse than fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking enables banks and borrowers to print money out of thin air

Bank credit is money.

First-past-the-post is helpful to the government

Proportional Representation leads to small government. Government is not chosen... If government is wanted fptp would not always lead to the emergence of two main parties... it is because (of the fact) that it is unwanted that people feel they must select one of the established parties. Proportional Representation does not result in big government. No system of electing governments is worse than fptp. Indeed, it has been said that first-past-the-post is the best form of democracy except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. If some democracy is good then more must be better. Fptp is not democratic enough. PR is more democratic.

Banks print money if the deposit guarantee is reliable

Fractional reserve banking has no advantages

Fiat currencies are false currencies

Fiat currencies enable banks to print money

Proportional Representation is not socialist

Fptp maintains antipathy towards the government

Banks do not have deposit insurance

Deposit insurance enables banks to print fiat money

There is no reason for banks to be able to print money

Banks can print money if the state exists

Banks should not be insured by the government

The state is not a bank

Elections do not exist

The government have not yet woken up to the realities of fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is harmful

The taxpayer should not be exposed to fractional reserve banking

Why is fractional reserve banking guaranteed by the taxpayer? Why is taxpayer money being used to guarantee bank deposits? Why not let banks fail?

Fractional reserve banking hurts people

Banks are hurting us when they do not keep full reserves

Fractional reserve banking is always fraudulent

There is no reason to be fearful of a bank run they are an inevitable part of life

Fractional reserve banking is not possible if there are bank runs

There cannot be a bank run if there is deposit insurance

An intelligent government would not provide deposit insurance

The existence of deposit insurance is evidence of the ignorance of government.

The government is ignorant of economics... otherwise fractional reserve banking would be illegal

The existence of fractional reserve banking proves that the government is ignorant of economics.

Fractional reserve banking is like alchemy

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than legalised counterfeiting.

Only real things are valuable not paper money

If banks cannot print money they are not part of the state

If banks can’t fail they can print money.

Deposit insurance increases the money supply

Inflation is the only consequence of deposit insurance

Inflation is the only problem with banking

The only problem with banking is inflation. Or it is not inflationary and we can worry about the banking system later... Either the banking system has no problem within it or there is a problem of inflation. These are the only two options. Either the banking system is inflationary or it has no problem.

Deposit insurance is counterfeiting!

Change the banking system! Reform the banking system now! Or else! Why not reform the banking system so that banks can’t cause inflation? Full reserve banking works for me. Is fine.

No good government provides deposit insurance

The state is why the banks can’t fail

The banks can’t fail because they are the government

The banks are the government. There is no deposit insurance.

Deposit insurance is nothing more than socialism

Fractional reserve banking is socialist

Fractional reserve banking reduces the scarcity of money

My claim is nothing more than: The bank guarantee is trustworthy

Unfortunately banks print money in the present circumstances. Guaranteed bank deposits are a cash equivalent... a proxy for cash. The government is not magic it does not create economic growth. Inflation comes from printing money.

Definition: Cash is nothing more than government credit

Definition: Fractional reserve banking is when the government gives new money to the banks

Free people can print money

It doesn’t make sense to have deposit insurance

Deposit insurance is nothing more than a subsidy

No one should be protected from failure

No one should have deposit insurance.

Free market banking is full reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than theft

Fractional reserve banking does not exist

Fractional reserve banking is against the law

Banks with deposit insurance are not allowed to make loans otherwise inflation results

Only the government should be allowed to print money

Banks should not be allowed to print money out of thin air

We don’t have capitalism... Banks could fail in a capitalist system

Banks are part of the private sector they should not have deposit insurance

Counterfeiting is a natural right

Fractional reserve currencies are fake currencies

Without banks there would be no government

Proportional Representation is an improvement on fptp

Regrettably for a liberal state bank credit is cash if it is guaranteed

Proportional Representation means there is no official opposition

All elections are fake

Without laws against counterfeiting there would be no fractional reserve banking

Deposit insurance is theft

Deposit insurance is nothing more than a form of taxation

Bank deposit insurance causes inflation

If there are laws against counterfeiting then there should be no deposit insurance

If laws against counterfeiting exist then fiat currencies maintain value and deposit insurance is inflationary. Which is inconsistent because if banks can print money then everyone should be able to. And if everyone can print money then it will have no value. Fiat currencies need (at least) some people not to be able to print them. Those people should include the banks. If we are prevented from printing money then so too should banks be prevented. If there is a social contract... why not prevent banks from printing money?

Fractional reserve banking is no worse than printing money

It’s fine if banks can fail

Socialism causes fractional reserve banking. The problems with the banking system are caused by socialism. There is no problem but socialism. Socialism is the only problem. Banks aren’t allowed to fail if they have deposit insurance. We should have no more socialist bailouts...

Money is no more meaningful than a banking licence

Banks are the government if they have deposit insurance

To criticise the banks for being the government (a positive truth) is less effective than to criticise the government for being banks. If a company is private we assume it can fail... and therefore that it is wanted. Then, it is not a contradiction that they do something wrong unless they have performed a crime. Can we phone the police if banks have inflated the currency? They are within the law. If the government has done something wrong it is understood that there is no law-enforcement agency to deal with it... the questions must be answered as they stand. If something that is legal is wrong then we have a legitimate complaint. To say that banks are government is not a crime as there are other public bodies. (The claim that) governments print money is not so easily dismissed... as with illegal invasions of foreign countries. Legality is not a defence for the government.

Definition: Counterfeiting is when banks have insufficient reserves

Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than counterfeiting. Not that there’s anything wrong with that...

All banking is full reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is invalid. If there are not enough reserves for deposits to be paid out on demand the bank is insolvent... it is not performing some new style of banking.

The problem with banking is deposit insurance

Fractional reserve banking is bad because it causes inflation

The only problem with fractional reserve banking is the inflation.

Only the government should be allowed to print money

If banks can’t print money why not give deposit insurance to everyone? Fractional reserve banking is a terrible way to get new money into the system. If a firm cannot fail then its credit is money. Bank credit is money because they (banks) cannot fail. If banks could fail their credit would not be money.

Deposit insurance is not part of the free market

Deposit insurance should not be provided by the state

We should be able to provide our own deposit insurance. There is no reason the free market cannot be a provider of deposit insurance.

The government should default on the banking system

There is no reason not to take away the promised deposit insurance.

The banking sector is insolvent otherwise there would be no requirement for deposit insurance

Without the government the banks are insolvent. The government could easily pull the plug on the banks. Banks are bondholders.

Freedom is illegal

If banks could fail they would not be part of the state

No one should be forced to guarantee bank deposits

Banks should be allowed to fail. Banks should not be protected from insolvency by the state. Banks can’t fail if they can print money. Being able to print money means banks can’t fail. Banks are part of the state if they can’t fail. We should stop supporting the banks.

Fractional reserve banking makes land expensive

People are blind to the nature of banking

Trying to get people to understand fractional reserve banking is like the opposite of the Emperor’s new clothes. We are trying to get people to see something which is present... not an absence.

Fractional reserve banking is expensive to the taxpayer

Without a state there cannot be fractional reserve banking

Banks exploit deposit insurance by making loans. Banks with deposit insurance shouldn’t make loans.

The social contract is non aggression

If a bank has deposit insurance it should not be permitted to make loans

Deposit insurance is theft for the benefit of the banks. Deposit insurance causes inflation. There is a problem with not letting banks fail. Deposit insurance is not without consequences. Fractional reserve banking is a consequence of socialism.

If banks have deposit insurance they shouldn’t be allowed to make loans

This would be a separation of lending and deposit insurance. No one should be allowed to make loans if they have deposit insurance. If a bank has deposit insurance it should not be permitted to make loans.

If banks can’t fail they shouldn’t be allowed to make loans

Not allowing banks to fail doesn’t by necessity mean they can print money... deposit insurance could be conditional on no bank lending. If they have deposit insurance they shouldn’t be allowed to lend.

If companies can’t fail they can print money

Fractional reserve banking steals wealth from the productive economy

Fractional reserve banking exploits our use of fiat money.

Fractional reserve banking is insufficient reserve banking

It should be illegal for banks to make loans if they have deposit insurance. As usual the problem (of banking) is with the state. Fractional reserve banking is coercive banking. Prices are high because banks can’t fail. Banks need to be able to fail (in a fiat economy) otherwise inflation results.

Fractional reserve banking causes poverty

Fractional reserve banking doesn’t make sense

Fractional reserve banking cannot exist without an element of fraud

Democracy is the final tyranny

It is logical to live in an Anocracy with no rulers

Because we don’t need a government we don’t need elections

There is nothing wrong with full reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is inherently violent

Fractional reserve banking relies upon deposit insurance which is provided by the state. Fractional reserve banking is not possible without violence.

The problem with socialism is that banks print money

Governments are aggressive

The banks are not worse than the state

What’s wrong with printing money? Unfortunately for my position banks do not violate the non-aggression principle.

We need to get rid of fractional reserve deposit insurance

Fractional reserve banking is nothing worse than counterfeiting

To have deposit insurance and make loans is counterfeiting

If counterfeiting is illegal why not this form of fractional banking? Why not give deposit insurance to everyone? Either everyone should have it or no one should have it. If I can fail then why not the banks? A lack of sufficient reserves is not a reason for them to be protected.

Fractional reserve banking demonstrates the worthlessness of fiat currencies

Most currencies are fractional reserve currencies... not full reserve currencies. The banks are subsidised by the government. Banks are subsidised because they are a vital part of the infrastructure.

Fractional reserve banking is not threatened by Democracy

The existence of fractional reserve banking demonstrates that people don’t care about their country. If people cared about their country there would be no fractional reserve banking.

No legitimate party wants to keep fractional reserve banking

A legitimate political party will be an advocate of sound money and banking reform.

Insolvent banking contradicts the social contract...

Insolvent banking contradicts the social contract because it is directly and unambiguously harmful to the people.

Fractional reserve banking is exploitation of the people

The banks own the currency... it is not natural like land

Rhetoric cannot change banking. It is consistent and there are no contradictions.

The government keeps giving money to the banks

It should be illegal for the government to guarantee bank deposits. Deposit insurance should be illegal.

With fptp the dissenting voter is ignored because only populist votes count

Fractional reserve banking by the government will never be illegal... unless it is unpopular

It is not possible to make a law against the government otherwise fractional reserve banking could (might) be illegal. Fractional reserve banking by the government will never be illegal... unless it is democratically impossible. They can’t stop reality.

Rich banks are full reserve banks

Definition: Fractional reserve banking means banks can’t fail

The main parties are addicted to fptp

The government do not mind... they are unconcerned... that banks print money

There are no votes in monetary reform.

Reminder: People trust the government... to secure their ‘bank’ deposits

They don’t realise (or aren’t concerned that) banks and government are one and the same.

Elections are illegitimate because there is no fair system of government

Deposit insurance is theft

Why not give deposit insurance to everyone? Everyone should have deposit insurance.

Fractional reserve banking is not sustainable

A banking collapse is inevitable. Deposit insurance destroys savings only if fiat currencies are valuable.

The government doesn’t think bank credit is money

The government doesn’t value fiat currencies. It can’t understand why people keep exchanging their assets and labour for paper.

The value of bank credit comes from the government

The government cannot make fiat valuable

Proportional Representation is direct democracy

Proportional Representation is direct democracy... the opposite of representative democracy

People who value cash are scared of the government

People have no reason not to trust the government guarantee of bank deposits

Proportional Representation is proportional government

Proportional Representation is like perpetual referendums

The government doesn’t like proportional representation for the same reason that it dislikes referendums. It doesn’t like the people having a say.

Fractional reserve banking is counterfeiting

Money is not scarce if banks can print it

The presence of deposit insurance contradicts the required scarcity of money.

Money isn’t real it is a religion

Banks are allowed to print money because of Socialism

A good government would make fractional reserve banking illegal

Peace and security is exciting War is boring

The inability of banks to fail creates fiat money

Fractional reserve banking is theft by inflation...

Fractional reserve banking is theft by inflation participated in by the banks, the government and the borrower.

Allowing fractional reserve banking destroys the social contract

Banks can’t fail because of deposit insurance

Deposit insurance if they think it is Capitalism makes people socialists

Not so bad would be full reserve government

Full reserve government is a good idea.

Reality is not a choice

Banks are not allowed to go out of business because of deposit insurance

The government thinks banks print money and it is their decision

If there is universal state deposit insurance then there are no private banks

Banks can print money if bank runs are not possible

Bank runs are perhaps regrettable, but they are necessary to prevent banks from being able to print money.

Free banking is the antonym of fractional reserve banking

Democratic representation is statelessness

The government is not ignorant of fractional reserve banking

The value of money is reduced because of fractional reserve banking

The banks are solvent only because of deposit insurance

Government banks should not be allowed to make loans

It is not the role of banks to make loans

Nothing can be done about pr rhetorically

Fractional reserve banking is always part of the state... otherwise there would be a bank run

If the government both allows and guarantees fractional reserve banking then inflation will result

Democracy does not prevent violence

Proportional Representation is a form of wealth

Proportional Representation shares political power with the voters

It’s weird not to want elections to be proportional

We should elect only politicians who want to fix the monetary system

To deny that banks print money... if they have deposit insurance... is to be an anarchist

Only statists believe banks print money

If deposit insurance is meaningful it will regrettably cause inflation

There is no reason for bank credit to be guaranteed

Everyone should have a banking licence

Lending deposits is not looking after them

Fractional reserve banking is helpful for no one

Full reserve banking is the only legitimate kind of banking

If FPTP exists then neither of the main parties will be right wing or left wing

A bank run is better than deposit insurance

It would be better not to guarantee bank deposits

It would be better to have full reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking in its present form is a government conspiracy

Proportional Representation is more freedom

The government prints money when loans are made

It is the government not the banks which issue money when loans are made. The government replaces bank credit with government-guaranteed credit, which enables the banks to release the cash into the economy.

The government prints money when a bank makes a loan

The banks are in too much debt to fail

Banks do nothing more than get free money from the government

Proportional representation is good for people who want a small state

The government will be hated if it does not offer fair votes

It is not important but... banks print money

The existence of fractional reserve banking is a trick

It would be good to privatise the fractional reserve banking system

If there is a fiat currency deposit insurance means perpetual solvency

Bank lending of money is theft because the value of exclusivity is taken

Fractional reserve banking is no better than counterfeiting

The banks exploit their banking licence... by making loans

It is impossible to prevent fractional reserve banking

The worst thing about all governments is fractional reserve banking

If counterfeiting is bad then the government should not guarantee bank deposits

Deposit insurance is an unfair use of taxpayer funds

There is no form of government better than pr

Proportional representation is the best form of government.

Fractional reserve banking causes inflation

It is impossible for bank loans to cause inflation if they are not printing money

It is not possible to cause inflation without printing money.

It would be intelligent for the government to regulate fractional reserve banking

The money supply should be nationalised

It would be better not to have fractional reserve banking

Bank credit is government credit which is money

Full reserve banking would be good for the economy

There is no need to protect banks from failure

The government don’t mind that banks can print money

Reserves are irrelevant as far as prices are concerned

Nothing more than bank loans cause inflation

Threats give value to fiat money

Deposit insurance causes inflation

We are not separate from the banks if we have deposit insurance

We are forced to bail out banks because of deposit insurance

It would be better to allow the banks to go bust

We should allow bank runs otherwise credit becomes too valuable

It’s not a good idea to let banks have control of the money supply

The media support the banks

Free market banking is full reserve banking

Anyone should be allowed to print government money

Money can be printed by banks

Banks have the advantage of being able to print money

A good leader is one that does nothing and resigns

The government could prevent bank inflation

The banks are special because they can print money

To be consistent everyone should be allowed to print money if banks can

The only way to get rid of guaranteed banks is anarchy

The banks are not exposed to market forces

Deposit insurance means that the money supply is not constrained

Proportional Representation is even better than fptp

Proportional Representation would reduce the influence of the mainstream parties

To advocate fptp is to advocate the exclusion of minority candidates

Proportional representation is shared representation

Proportional representation is a form of democratic freedom

Fiat currencies are not state money they are controlled by the banks

It is impossible to be a leader

Only full reserve banks should be eligible for the deposit guarantee

Fiat currencies have no intrinsic value

A balance sheet will not balance if the equity is not adjusted to reflect profit and loss

From Wikipedia (Balance sheet) 1st September 2011 ‘Another way to look at the same equation is that assets equals liabilities plus owner's equity. Looking at the equation in this way shows how assets were financed: either by borrowing money (liability) or by using the owner's money (owner's equity). Balance sheets are usually presented with assets in one section and liabilities and net worth in the other section with the two sections "balancing."’

The balance sheet will balance, assuming there has been some business activity which has resulted in either a profit or a loss, only if the ownership equity is adjusted accordingly. If the equity is left static then a profit to the company (an increase in assets which is not offset by an equivalent increase in liabilities) will result in a violation of the accounting equation. If the accounting equation is not to be violated then the equity must be adjusted accordingly... upwards in the case of a profit, so that it will no longer still reflect the original injection of investment.

Fractional reserve banking is destroying fiat currencies

It doesn’t make sense to use a safe because we might as well let others have use of the goods

There are no banks

There can never be a banking collapse because the banks are solvent

Deposit insurance enables banks to inflate the currency

There is no reason for the government to guarantee bank deposits

There is an equivalence between FPTP and big government

PR is similar to having no government like anarchy

Proportional elections usually result in the formation of a coalition

Government spending is fascism not economic growth

A progressive political party is in favour of pr

Full reserve banking doesn’t need deposit insurance

Inflationary banking results from deposit insurance

PR means politicians must listen to their voters

Deposit insurance enables banks to print money

Bank credit is money because it has value

According to the markets bank credit is money

FPTP makes it difficult to know what other people are thinking

FPTP is not better than democracy

Elections are important only because of fptp

Parliament doesn’t function without pr

Proportional Representation makes Parliament meaningful

Proportional Representation is freedom because it enables politicians to join whatever party they like. FPTP forces politicians to join the main parties which means that Parliament becomes redundant, and we have a presidential system. PR gets rid of (reduces) the government because MPs are able to oppose the Prime Minister without fear of losing their jobs, they are not part of the main party.

It is good to be left alone

The best form of democracy is pr

There is nothing wrong with full reserve banking ...it is good

There is no reason not to trust the people with pr

Elections would be proportional without constituency seats

A fptp general election is a referendum on pr

No socialism exists when there is pr

Government is slavery

Banks are able to cause inflation

There is no reason for the government to allow inflationary banking

The banking system is the invisible elephant in the room

Proportional representation is nothing more than democratic representation

The state allows banks to increase the money supply

The banking system demonstrates that fiat currencies are worthless

People will never find out about frb it will always be a secret

Democracy is not a good idea because it is government

PR is democracy

It is not good for the government to allow frb

Communism is not left wing

In languages which flow from left to right, being of the left will be seen as a good thing, the default case, leading up to something oppositional and right wing. To be left-wing is to be good. However, politically coercion is not good and so we are best served by removing the descriptor of ‘left’ from coercionist and collectivist ideologies.

Democracy is proportional

There is no material difference between frb and counterfeiting

Without fiat money banks would not exist

If the prevailing money is useless, depositors do not find out about the lending behaviour of their bank because their property is whole, as far as they are concerned. If money had real functional value, it would be impossible for the depositor to retain use of a functional item which has been loaned out, and banking in its current form would not exist.

If banking is not a fraud then banks print money

There is no state

An intelligent government would make frac res banking illegal

It’s curious that the government allows frac res banking since it depreciates the value of the currency, for private profit. It doesn’t make sense for the government to allow frac res banking, unless it is stupid.

There is no reason to allow banks to increase the supply of state credit

To describe a lending institution as a bank is a deception, if a bank spends deposits it is not a bank.

There is no reason to allow insured banks to make loans

It doesn’t make sense to allow frac res banking, particularly as a consequence of fiat currencies and deposit insurance.

Minority rule would prevent the instability of pr

It is possible to organise a voting system with the stability of fptp but also with the advantages of proportional representation, being a lack of (the requirement for) tactical voting.

Once the election has occurred each party (represented by their leader) elects which of the emerging coalitions to support, in accordance with their share of the popular vote. It doesn’t matter, at this stage, which electoral system has been chosen provided we are able to know the popular totals. The winning coalition will gain power, but with all voting and legislative power transferred to the majority (largest) party within the coalition. This party can then govern for the full term with or without the loyalty of their coalition partners. Such a system would mean that voters can choose which, from the left and right flanks of politics, particular party they support and vote for them in the knowledge that they will still be preventing a more feared party succeed, there is no need for tactical voting of this sort. For this reason it is much easier for smaller parties to eventually usurp the more dominant, established groups. The winning coalition cannot resign unless the controlling party agrees.

People have no right to have elections

Elections are not valid unless they are proportional

Banks have no right to inflate the currency

No one should have a banking license. We have no right to inflate the money supply. Since we have no choice but to use the established currency, only the state should be able to cause inflation.

The present voting system is unfair

The present system of voting doesn’t enable people to vote for whomever they want. Only having one winner per seat means most votes will be wasted if they are not cast for one of the leading candidates.

An unfair voting system is a form of communism

The problem with fptp is that both parties are useless

If one of the main parties is acceptable then there is nothing wrong with fptp.

FPTP is tedious and boring

The present voting system of fptp is not liberal, there is no democratic pressure on the main parties to change. A fair system is less boring.

Bigger constituencies would improve the electoral process

Under pr there would be a democratic mandate to do nothing.

A lack of democracy is socialism

If we don’t change the system then people can only vote for one of the main parties. Changing the system would give people more freedom.

No voting system is democratic unless it is proportional

Democracy requires proportionality, in the same way that a monarchy is not democratic, disproportionate votes are not democratic either. A system of voting can be said to be democratic only if it is proportional.

Banks print money

If bank credit is no less valuable than cash then banks print money.

Banks are allowed to print money

To have deposit insurance is the same as being allowed to print money.

Frac res banking is not ever free market

A free market would be better than the present system of frac res banking.

If we had fracrb that would enable banks to print money

If we have fracrb then (inevitably) banks can print money. If banks can’t print money then we don’t have fracrb, we (might) have fullrb.

Liberals do not support fptp

It is a contradiction to be for small government and against pr.

The voting system might be improved

Anarchy is better than democracy.


It is a contradiction for anyone in government (an authoritarian) to claim that the voting system (used in the past) is wrong. If such an authoritarian is liberally minded then the voting system has not been an impediment to liberalism, and there is no need to change, the people have been wise in spite of the voting system. And there is no reason to think the people will not continue to be sufficiently wise into the future. If the authoritarian is socialist then they have already got what they want under the fptp (socialist) system, so there is no need to change unless pr leads to more socialism, fptp is already a good system for them. A liberal (authoritarian) would perhaps want to move to pr... but the fact of their already being in power suggests that the voting system is not a problem, only that it might be improved, made even better.

The state is nothing more than the voting system

The state is the voting system, the state is nothing more than the voting system.

Fptp is not anarchy

Democracy is designed to protect us from the state, more democracy more protection.
Fptp does not provide sufficient choice and is unfair.

Fair voting introduces competition to each side

Under pr there would no need to get frustrated with your party, you would simply be able to vote for someone else. Majoritarian voting is like having a dictatorship on either side. As a centre-right (or centre-left) voter, we must tolerate the Republicans (or the Democrats) even if we dislike them. There is no easy (democratic) means to influence our party of choice, other than to complain.

It is possible to still vote centre-right (or centre-left) and have our vote matter, under pr.


With fptp there is no competition on either side.

Majoritarian voting gives all the power to the party leaders

A fair system of voting is better for MPs (and not their leader) as they would have more influence, in this system.

Under fptp MPs have no influence, it is like winning the lottery for the party (party leader) which gets elected... they can do almost whatever they want. Having many MPs (under pr) means that any legislation has to meet the approval of a majority in the chamber. The present system is presidential. With pr MPs would be in a better position to constrain parliament, under fptp they cannot reject bad laws because they are (have been) given no power.

There is nothing wrong with advocating pr

Yes.

The manner in which the votes are counted is very relevant

The manner in which the votes are counted is relevant.

There is no reason to fear pr

There is no reason to advocate fptp unless there is a fear of democracy. The alternative to democracy (which is pr) is worse. Unfair votes (fptp) is for people who are scared of democracy.

Fair votes means equal votes

If all votes should be counted equally then it makes sense to have pr. Unfair voting means that votes do not count equally.

Fptp is not good even for supporters of the incumbent parties

Fptp is not good for anyone, not even those people who support the leading parties. Anyone that supports one of the leading parties would still have that option under pr but they would also have other, perhaps more preferable, options.

Fptp is not proportional

Simple fptp does not result in proportional outcomes.

Banks do not print money

Frb is impossible so it is ridiculous to ‘trust’ the banks.

There is nothing wrong with advocating full reserve banking

Yes.

There is no limit on money supply inflation

There is no money supply ceiling.

We do not know whether bank credit is money

If bank credit is not money then there will be a crash of the banking sector. If there is no chance of a banking collapse then bank credit is money.

Most people are libertarian

For people that like government fptp is not a problem, these people will be able to choose the best of the two main parties. It is only a problem if you don’t like government.

Fair votes would enable us to get rid of the government.

Advocates of fptp do not support democracy

If democracy is good then pr would be better than fptp because it offers more democracy. If the leading parties share a tyranny then fptp offers no solution for the voter. A democrat will support full pr.

The political class do not fear fptp

True.

Fptp is not democracy

An electoral system in which only one of the two main parties can win is not democracy.

Only full reserve banking is banking

If a bank (deliberately) does not have full reserves it cannot be called a bank.

There will be a default of the banking system

The banking system will collapse which means banks do not increase the money supply (permanently) and only base money is relevant. Banks cause (temporary) price inflation because people are deceived into thinking they have money, the market does not yet differentiate. The market has not yet realised that the banks are insolvent.

Deposit insurance means that frb should be illegal

Banks have no right to lend out deposits because of deposit insurance. Banks would have a right to make loans in a free market.

PR is anarchy

Fair votes is anarchy. Under fair votes there is no state because everyone is appropriately (proportionally) represented. PR is statelessness.

There is no reason for a referendum on pr

There is no reason to have a referendum on reform of the voting system. People should be forced to have pr (in replacement of the existing unfair system, only) whether they like it or not.

Fptp makes the government more powerful

The only reason to complain about proportionality would be (if you are) someone with a vested interest in the main parties. The main parties are terrified of democracy. Proportionality would weaken government.

There is nothing to like about fptp

With fair votes politicians would need to be more concerned about peoples’ problems.

Socialism is selfish

Socialism is not generous. People who are generous will allow others to live their lives as they wish. The state is selfish.

Growth does not always require trade

GDP measures trade and transactions not growth.

GDP is meaningless (not only because it includes government spending but also) because it measures only transactions, not wealth created personally. If something is not sold, but consumed by the creator of it then it will not count.

Growth can happen without trade.

The state is a false concept

The state has no right to exist. We have an exclusive right to our own labour.

Fptp is illegitimate

Fptp is not a legitimate (form of) electoral system.

Bank profits belong to the taxpayer if their liabilities do

No bank should be able to make private profits if its liabilities are public. There is no problem with private profits if the liabilities are (also) private.

A good bank doesn’t need deposit insurance

Solvent banks have no need for deposit insurance. The presence of deposit insurance contradicts the notion that banks are reliable and trustworthy.

Fiat currencies ruin capitalism

Capitalism doesn’t work if people are using a fiat currency because money can be ‘earned’ not only through work but also inflation.

Bank credit is like money in that it causes price inflation

The banking system is the primary cause of inflation in the economy. Nothing else but banking significantly causes inflation to the same degree.

Democracy rests on false assumptions

We have no right to make choices for other people, only ourselves. By necessity, any democratic system relies on the assumption that this right exists, so democracy rests on false assumptions. We have a right to make choices only for ourselves. No one has the right to make choices for others.

The government has no right to exist

Simply being named the government (by yourself or by others) makes no difference to the morality of crimes. Crimes are still bad even if you are the government.

Most people don’t understand how the banks cause inflation

Banking is not widely understood.

The left are not enlightened

The left are bigots, they are prejudiced against the freedoms of the individual. Socialism is bigotry. Socialism is the antithesis of freedom.

The banking system is a monopoly

There aren’t separate banks only one big bank, as a result of the existence of deposit insurance.

Elections do not alter ethics

If some people don't want to join in with communism they 'should' be (allowed to be) left alone. It is a crime to coerce individuals even if the majority want it.

Cash is no more valuable than bank credit

If a bank run is impossible then cash is not better than bank credit, which means it's not a good idea to value cash.

Fair votes produces a more libertarian government

Our votes count for the most if we can directly reject government which we don't like. If the outcome is not proportional we must promote a party which we might not otherwise choose, so the most libertarian government will be chosen with proportional outcomes, if we are not allowed to vote negatively.

Equality is not important in economics

Communism requires that everyone be economically equal.

Fptp does not make it easy to reject bad candidates

The best type of voting system makes it very easy to reject bad candidates.

Banks are part of the state

The existence of deposit insurance means that banks are not separate from the state.

Government is theft

Government is nothing more than an excuse to steal money.

Money is whatever can be used to pay taxes

Money is something which can be used to pay taxes, such as cash or bank credit. Anything which is refused (by the government) is not money.

We don’t need money

It is possible for a civilisation to survive without a predominant form of money.

People becoming indifferent to cash is not the only cause of inflation

The banking institutions would not be able to cause inflation if not for the government. Without the government the banks would not be able to alter the price of cash.

The explanation for inflation is not that people are slowly becoming indifferent to cash, rather (it is) that the money supply (of cash and state credit) is being increased by the banks.

It’s more important to know about monetary inflation than to be told about prices

To measure price inflation is to measure the result of monetary policy, rather than the cause. It’s more important to know how much the money supply is altering than to know how much prices are altering, which we already have a good idea about.

It’s boring to have a government

There is nothing shocking about the left, they are conventional in their attitudes.

It’s much easier to get rid of socialists if the voting system is fair

To get rid of socialists we need to be able to choose a liberal (libertarian) candidate from those offered. Unless we can make this choice without our vote being ignored (as it would be with an unfair system) then we are inclined towards voting for the established (socialist) parties, to make our vote count. If voting for libertarians doesn’t count (fptp) then we are left with (voting for) socialists. Unfair voting systems make it difficult (impossible) to get rid of socialists.

Fptp elections are not fair elections

No party has a mandate to govern unless it has been elected by fair elections. Only pr elections are valid. There is no mandate to govern unless a party has been elected fairly.

Moral government is impossible

It’s not possible to have moral government. By definition, government requires at least partial ownership of individuals, which is not moral.

Fptp protects the mainstream parties from libertarian voters

We can assume that if there is a centre-right majority (among the electorate) Fptp does not prevent it from gaining power. So then if the mainstream centre-right party allows freedom (is libertarian) then there is no problem with Fptp voting. However, if the centre-right party is not libertarian then Fptp presents a problem since an authoritarian party will be returned in either case, and we cannot differentiate (at the ballot box) which type of right-wing party we would like. Fair votes would enable voters to choose which type of right-wing party they would prefer.

If a country has fair votes then it is a democracy

A country is not a democracy if it does not have fair votes.

Socialism is impossible without violence

Socialism is impossible without violence. By definition, socialism requires that people are compelled to act against their wishes.

Democracy is vital to individual safety

Democracy is how we keep out bad legislators. Without democracy there is nothing to protect individual rights.

It is wrong that people are forced to pay back their debts

The promise made by a debtor should be ignored, or forgiven because the person must have been in desperate circumstances to have taken out the debt to begin with. No one should be forced to pay back their debts, their debts ‘should’ be forgiven.

Democracy is no justification for government

For it to mean anything at all, the concept of Democracy must mean that we are compelled and obligated to ‘obey’ the instructions of an elected body. If the individual has the right to refuse then the ballot is nothing more than an informal opinion poll.

It is not impossible for many people to share the same bad idea.

If it is possible for the crowd to be wrong then the concept of Democracy is false.

Fair votes would remove the advantage given to the main parties

With pr there is rarely an instance of a single party gaining an outright majority, they must form a coalition in most cases, but with fptp it is possible (likely) that a single party will have overall control. Power (with fptp) is concentrated among the two main parties. Fair votes would level the playing field by removing this advantage, so pr removes this unfair advantage.

There would be no advantage for the main parties under pr.

The political left do not like freedom

The political left is afraid of freedom, they are not comfortable with the concept of people being free to do as they please. The left do not like freedom. Anyone that does not like freedom is a leftist.

The value of a note is not altered by how often it has been spent

The Velocity Theory of Inflation can be said to be (is) a flawed theory (similar to the Marxian labour theory of value) which gives a misplaced explanation for the phenomenon of inflation. The theory, or assumption, is that the more (often) money is spent within the economy, the less its value will be and this will result in inflation. It is as though, the more people to have been in possession of the money on its course through the economy, the less its value will be. This is clearly absurd, we might ask ourselves how the price of a note would compare to that of a similar note which has been used multiple times. Of course the price of each note is the same, according to its face value, we take no account of its wear-and-tear the value is determined only by its denomination.

Fptp gives you more socialism than people voted for

With pr the outcome is socialism only if most people want it to be so, with fptp it is socialism whether people want it or not. With pr there is a chance of small government, not with fptp.

Only someone who is owned must pay taxes

Authoritarianism is the same as (implies and requires) ownership...

If someone has the right to instruct another person to do as they say, then the subject of this instruction is owned (axiomatically) by the issuer of it. If we are not owned then we are free to refuse all instructions and offers. Only someone who is owned must be loyal, and must always obey another person.

People like money because it seems tangible and real... there is a fetish for cash

For (paper) money to retain its integrity requires that banks are prevented from lending. The value of having fiat money depends on other people not having it, if everyone can get a loan and a house all that happens is that prices inflate, no extra wealth is created.

Only the government should be able to cause inflation

If a bank has deposit insurance then it is a crime for it to lend out deposits. Doing so will cause inflation which is a form of theft.

Only banks without deposit insurance should be able to lend out deposits.

Land is expensive because of the banking system

Inflationary banking enables people to get a mortgage (to purchase land) when otherwise they would not be able to do so, provided they are willing to ‘owe’ money to the banks. This devalues all other forms of money because it becomes subsequently more difficult for those who do not take out a mortgage to purchase land, they must pay a higher price. So then, land is expensive mostly because of the banking system.

Fractional reserve banking is not the best system of banking

There is no good reason to have fractional reserve banking. There is nothing provided by inflationary banks which could not, more efficiently, be provided by other means.

There is no good reason to use Fptp to determine the outcome of elections

Fptp winner-takes-all is an unfair electoral system because it makes no allowance to ensure proportional outcomes.

The banks are the same as the state if they have a deposit guarantee

There is no difference between the banks and the state.

The government does not understand how banking works

If the government understood how banking works it would not allow it.

Banking (in its present manifestation) causes inflation which harms the poor disproportionately. The fact that Frb (relending deposits) is not illegal is evidence that the government does not understand its consequences.

Frb is an ambiguous term to use to describe the banking system

A better description for Frb would be partial reserve banking. To use the word Fractional is somewhat ambiguous because it allows for (does not exclude) the possibility that the fraction might be greater than unity.

Partial reserve banking (clearly) means strictly less than unity, which is why it is a more accurate description.

Elections give the government no legitimacy

Having an election does not alter the legitimacy of the government. The moral position of a thief is not altered even if there is an element of choice in the crime. We (the victim) might prefer to suffer less but the crime remains.

Cash is not money unless it is a liability of the state

Bank credit is money, not cash.

Bank credit is money because it is a liability of the state. Cash is only money if it is a liability of the state, which sometimes it is.

The individual has rights equivalent to those of the group

The law emerges spontaneously when we seek safety from others.

Something is money if it alters the price of other money

Money is either bank credit or cash (which is held) outside the banking system. If credit of any kind causes (price) inflation then it is money. If credit causes the price inflation of other established money then, it too is money. Something is not money if it (its quantity) does not alter the price of other money.

Frb damages the integrity of the currency and should be illegal

There is no valid reason for frac. res. banking to be legal and tolerated. If the customer is aware, in a free market, this is not to be rightly known as banking in the conventional sense, and should be renamed.

In the case of Frb under deposit insurance, whether or not the customer is aware, the money supply is being inflated which removes value from those holding the currency. Even in the free market Frb can be tolerated only if the customer is aware of the theft, in which case this is not banking and must be described as something else. Frb is either fraud (allied with theft) in the free market or it is inflation (when banking is) in the public sector.

Only an institution which keeps full reserves can be said to be a bank

If a bank does not keep sufficient reserves, it is not a bank. Only a ‘bank’ which keeps full reserves can be said to be a bank. There is no form of banking which is not full reserve banking. It is a trick for an institution to pretend to be a bank if it does not keep full reserves. Most ‘banking institutions’ pretend to be a bank, which they are not since a bank keeps full reserves.

It is not illegal for banks with deposit insurance to lend out deposits

It is not a safe assumption that the government would make sure to prevent banks from causing inflation. In fact, the government allows banks to increase the money supply. The government has not outlawed fractional lending.

There is no reason to assume the banks are not able to inflate the money supply. The money supply is not stable.

The ability of banks to inflate the money supply is a form of fascism

The reason banks are able to make risky loans is that their credit is guaranteed. The banks would be more prudent, and would hold full reserves if there is a market requirement for them to do so, as there would be in the absence of a deposit guarantee.

The government cannot be said to be different from the banks if banks cannot fail.

It is fascism when the government provides services because it is not the responsibility of the government to do this. The government is the authority which has a legal monopoly on justice, they are to be feared by criminals and perhaps those who do not pay their taxes, but nothing more than that. It is fascism when the government provides services because the money has been stolen, to pay for the services. The victim cannot refuse. The opinion of the victim is irrelevant. Fascism is when there is no ability to refuse the government, and we (the victim) are not a criminal, in the ordinary sense. There might be some justification for taxation so that resources might be redistributed to the poor, but this is best achieved by the denial of property rights.

Taxation is not justified to provide government services. All government services are fascism, including the provision of deposit insurance.

The banks should not be trusted

If debt is invalid we should not be so confident about placing our money in the banks.

We have no right to ‘force’ the banks to return our possessions. We can, perhaps with justification, complain if the bank is obstructing our efforts to reclaim our goods (which are present) but if the bank no longer has the goods, there is not much we can do about it. The banks should not be trusted, as no one to whom money has been loaned should be trusted.

Political elections are a violation of our natural rights

An election doesn’t justify the destruction of private property. Individuals have a right to be free from elections.

If, by its nature, (by definition) an election means that the outcome takes precedent over (is superior to) natural rights, then we have a right to be free from elections. It means nothing to have an election which does not have elevated legal status above an informal poll of opinion. If it means anything to have an election (more than to have a meaningless poll) then elections are a violation of our natural rights.

Banks cause price inflation unless they hold full reserves

There would be no problem with the banking system if either banks are prevented from lending deposits, or there is no deposit insurance and banks can fail. There would be no problem with banking if there is no state involvement or the state prevents inflationary lending.

It is less bad to tax the rich than to tax the active

It is not such a good idea to tax (work and) labour as it would be to tax wealth, alone.

Labour and work is something people do not really want to do, they would prefer to be doing something else otherwise it would be called recreation. They are working because someone else wants them to do the work and is paying them, so it makes little sense for the government to provide yet more disincentive against the behaviour. We should forgive those who seek to improve their circumstances. If revenue must be taken it should be taken from the place where its absence will cause the least harm, that is it should be taken from the rich.

Fptp doesn’t work at providing good government

Fptp tends to result in socialist outcomes and for that reason it doesn’t work at providing a moral and fair system of government.

There is no such thing as money

There is no reason to be concerned about inflation of a fiat currency. It is not aggressive to print money, and it hurts no one.

Fiat money is not real money.

It’s best not to expect that debts will ever be paid back

Only debt which cannot be paid back will cause inflation.

If it could be paid back it would not have been loaned. No debt can (or will) ever be paid back.

Fptp gives an unfair advantage to the main parties

Under Fptp the votes cast for populist parties count extra.

Banks do not have a right to be bailed out

We have a natural right for other people not to be printing money, if there is a sanctioned, fiat, currency.

We have a natural right that no firms are protected from insolvency, if there is a government.