There is no need for deposit insurance

Deposit insurance enables banks to lend repeatedly and cause inflation, Fractional-reserve banking is a result of this insurance. There would be no need for deposit insurance if the banks held sufficient reserves, it is required only because of this problem. Without Fractional-reserve banking there would be no requirement for deposit insurance.

A genuine type of debt is when an object is loaned and later returned. The banking system creates false debts when it 'loans' money to customers, no one is deprived of the money, the cost is collective inflation only.

If the Government is helpful they would not lend inflationary money to citizens, it would be debt-free. It doesn't help the citizen to be forced to pay back the interest. It is not the case that new loans of this type do not affect the money supply, if we have more money to spend prices will then be higher. The money supply increases when a bank makes a loan because the money is put into the economy when previously it was bank reserves, which do not influence prices. It (the money supply) does not reduce when a deposit is then made because, although the money again becomes reserves, there are now some new bank deposits which replace the circulating currency. Bank reserves do not influence prices, whereas deposits do.

The reserve ratio of a bank has no bearing on general prices, it doesn't matter if a bank has fully-funded reserves or if it is entirely empty, the value of the deposits is unaltered. The value of bank deposits is unaffected by the reserve ratio, because of deposit insurance which removes the incentive for a bank to keep a high level of reserves. Deposit insurance means that there is nothing to prevent banks from repeatedly lending deposits received.

There is no reason to have elections

We have a right to be free of elections, where they presume that the law is derived from the outcome. It would be better if the authorities didn't bother to arrange them.

When we vote we are choosing the least bad option available

Not even an election is sufficient to justify tyranny.

Elections are the mechanism by which tyrants receive permission from the populace to be aggressive.

Democracy has no legitimacy as we have no right to control other people

The concept of Democracy is based upon a falsehood. We have no right to claim the property of others, no matter how numerous and strong we are. It is much better simply to let other people do what they want to do, mostly they will not do harm to us, or others.

There is no Government and there is only people

It is a delusion to think that we have a right to take money (the labour) from other people, even if we are (or consider ourselves to be) the Government.

There is nothing wrong with deposit insurance and bailing out the banks

There is little rhetorical protection against inflationary banking and bailouts and it is not aggressive to print money to save depositors from losing their money.

It is difficult to protect oneself from the inflationary banking system. Even if the Government doesn't provide deposit insurance initially, a priori, they might still attempt to monetise the debt in the event of a bank run at uninsured banks. Using reliable, well-reserved banks is no protection because other banks may be bailed out by the Government. A fiat currency makes it very likely that banks (anyone) will be able to inflate the money supply, not only the Government because of the subsidies which seemingly inevitably follow insolvencies. There is not much that can be done to prevent against this because it is not under a specific delusion that people act in this way, they (the authorities) know what they are doing, it is not like a miscarriage of justice the only people to be placed under arrest are those who refuse to pay taxes to provide the bailouts. Printing money to monetise the debt is not, in itself, aggressive, it is only because fiat currencies are a protected medium that the theft and poverty arises.

The Government should make it clear to people that the banks can increase the money supply

The Government wants to protect depositors from their decisions. As a result of this, the money supply will increase as bank deposits increase. Although the protective impulse is perhaps laudable the result is that the banks are able to inflate the money supply. In Communism it is illegal to be unemployed and as a result everyone starves to death, a similar result follows from deposit insurance. A bigger problem results from the deposit insurance than was presented by the risk of a bank failing. It is not the fault of ordinary taxpayers if some banks have loaned repeatedly and have insufficient reserves. To impose deposit insurance is not a defensive use of force and so it is not the concern of Government, or anyone. There is no reason to impose deposit insurance on innocent associates, we are not responsible for the actions of banks we are not involved with. Neither banks, nor their customers should be protected from the consequences of their actions by force. The Government should not pretend to provide deposit insurance if it does not intend to save the banks, equally if it does intend to save the banks, by monetising the deposits, as there is no other way, then it should be clear to everyone that the banks can inflate the currency.