It is not much of a problem to be in debt if there is constant inflation

Deposit insurance enables banks to inflate the money supply.

If there is constant inflation there is not much disincentive against getting in to debt. A fixed money supply means it is bad to be in debt.

The deposit guarantee is a subsidy of debts

The deposit guarantee is a subsidy of debt and means the banks will not be able to go out of business. They are already insolvent, but they can still continue to take profits.

The deposit guarantee gives value to bank credit and makes it money

The market is reassured by the deposit guarantee which enables banks to increase the money supply. Banks can print money because the market trusts the deposit guarantee.

If deposits are guaranteed then banks can print money. Banks are able to print money because of the deposit (credit) guarantee. The deposit guarantee is what prevents the banks from collapsing. The banks have much less in reserve than they owe on deposit because the money has been loaned and redeposited, which causes inflation.

Deposit insurance is a promise to monetise the debt; there is no reason to think this won't happen.

If an organisation is protected from insolvency then its credit will remain valuable and it has the ability to cause inflation, assuming a fiat currency is in place. If bank deposits are guaranteed then this will result in inflation because there is no disincentive against insolvency.

Banks cause dilution of the money supply.

Money is not only cash notes and coins but also bank credit, on deposit; it must be guaranteed by the State, so it is State credit. Definition: Money is anything which is guaranteed by the State. Cash (notes and coins) is not the only form of money, there are other kinds of money, including bank credit. Bank credit is a type of money.

It's not so hard to pay your taxes when you have the ability to increase the money supply

The right to impose taxation, for this author at least, relies on the assumption that only the Government can print money.

It seems unfair that we must pay taxes denominated in a currency which gives permission to banks to increase the money supply. Normal people must earn money (to pay taxes) but the banks simply print it. It is easier for banks (and their customers) to pay theirs taxes given that they have the ability to increase the money supply.

There is no reason to vote for higher taxes

There is no reason (all else being equal) not to vote for the party that offers the lowest taxes.

The Government should not be allowed to collect taxes, and it can be prevented from doing so by voting against it.

Proportional representation would remove power from the main parties

With a majoritarian voting scheme we have no choice but to pay attention to a candidate which we don't like and as a result this may mean that we must vote for their main rival. It is not enough to be voting for someone else as this vote may not count, we must balance this risk against the chance that our feared candidate will be successful. With a proportional voting scheme we have no (at least reduced) fear of a wasted vote and this enables votes to be cast on less popular parties, not worrying about having given space to a feared candidate to be selected.

Single winner seats give strength to the dominant parties

In majoritarian voting systems, it makes sense to cast your vote for one of the leading candidates; there is no point choosing a minority candidate because there is no chance this vote will count, it is better to influence the outcome between the favourites.

The leading candidates will generally be those endorsed by the main parties, and it is due to this dynamic that political parties emerge. This means that, in choosing their candidate, the main parties have an effective (if not in fact) monopoly on what might be termed the centre-right and centre-left. There would be less need for strong political parties if voters could be assured that a vote for a minority candidate would not be wasted. To enable this, it makes sense to allow more than one winner from each seat to be promoted to parliament. If there is more than one winner a vote cast for a minority candidate has a chance of success.

Proportional representation enables votes cast for minority candidates to be meaningful and as a result, this weakens the power of the main parties of both left and right. It is less vital for politicians to be part of the elite.

If candidates are being chosen for a representative position, such as parliament and not something presidential like being a mayor, then we can have constituencies with more than one representative, in a sense a parliament of parliaments.

One of the features of Democracy is that it tends to accentuate ignorances; if, among a large field, most of the candidates represent the truth and respect individual rights then there will be nothing to choose between them and it might be that none of them emerge as a potential winner and the vote will be split. If one of the candidates is ignorant in a manner held by a number of others who are voting, this politician will win, even with a small following.

If there are to be more than one winner chosen from the seat then this is helpful to the 'reasonable' candidates, they are not required to pander to the incumbent elite party who are seen as the natural opposition to ignorance.