Proportional representation better enables people to protect themselves from the government

If governments have the right to take taxes from people then they should make sure to hold fair elections. It is only because governments can be aggressive that we care about how they are elected. Fptp does not give people sufficient chance to reject a bad candidate or party, proportionality provides protection.

A citizen's dividend would be better than to receive public services

If redistribution of wealth is justified (due to the imbalances in existing property ownership) then it should be given directly to the poor and not spent on public services, which are inefficient.

To prevent inflation the banks should be prevented from reloaning customer deposits if there is a fiat currency

Fractional-reserve banking (Frb) is no more than the ability of banks to reloan deposits. If it is justified to prevent Frb on the grounds that, with a fiat currency, inflation will result, then reloaning deposits must be illegal. If there is coercion and a fiat economy, we must prevent banks from reloaning deposits if we would like to avoid the consequences of inflation.

If coercion exists Fractional-reserve banking should be illegal so that fiat currencies maintain their integrity

There are arguments to say that a Government should make Fractional-reserve banking (Frb) illegal.

If there is no Government Frb presents no problem because we have a free market in currencies and neither does deposit insurance exist. Governments often choose to bail out failed banks which supports and maintains Frb, which is why it is prudent to assume that any Government will always support Frb and provide deposit insurance. There is no point making a law against the Government (a constitution) to outlaw deposit insurance because the Government can ignore any law. Given that Government have a propensity to bail out and protect failed banks it is best to prevent their expansion by making Frb illegal. If there is a Government Frb should be illegal otherwise the currency will eventually, over time, be destroyed. To protect the currency, Fractional-reserve banking should be illegal, it should be illegal to repeatedly lend customer deposits within the context of a fiat (imposed currency) economy.

It is inconsistent not to extend the advantage of deposit insurance to other firms

The existence of deposit insurance in banking means reserves are irrelevant, as far as solvency is concerned. It is still helpful to have reserves so that actual cash loans can be issued and demands for cash can be met as they fall due, for liquidity, but there is no need (for reserves) from a 'balance sheet' solvency perspective. The value of bank receipts (trading at par with cash) is unaltered by the quantity of reserves held by the bank, even customers who are aware of the discrepancy don't care (have no reason to care) because of deposit insurance, so in this respect the high value of bank credit is not explained by ignorance. If bank deposits are insured it means that the Government would be a hypocrite to refuse bank receipts to settle a debt. There is no reason to give banks deposit insurance and there is no reason for the State to protect depositors of fraudulent or profligate banks.

The Government punishes people who do not turn over a sufficient (in the eyes of themselves) quantity of cash. If the Government will too (as well) accept bank receipts then automatically they will have value since they can be used instead. Fiat currencies, in their nature, are protection money. People don't care about the intrinsic merits of owning either cash or credit because it is not for themselves that they value it, but for the Government. Only if the Government eventually will (might) come to express a preference will there be a reason to differentiate. It only matters if the banks are insolvent if the Government cares about this fact, since the banks are insured by the Government, in reality people value neither cash nor bank credit. It is not a contradiction for a normal person (does not contradict their self-ownership) that the banks are insured by the Government because it doesn't make sense that taxes are owed to the Government either, in the first place. Deposit insurance is stupid but not surprising, we do not always complain if the despot tyrant chooses to pardon others, in this case the banks. But it is inconsistent to give banks this advantage and not to extend it to others, or everyone.

Communism is a crazy idea

Everyone is nuts to think that communism is a good idea.

It makes no sense to have allowed Fractional-reserve banking

It makes no sense for the central bank to have allowed fractional-reserve banking because this results in inflation.