Banks should not be allowed to print money

If we assume that a fiat currency is imposed by force as a result of taxation then counterfeiting that currency becomes a more serious crime than otherwise. If there is no official currency then it is not a crime to counterfeit currencies because we have a right to make pieces of paper in whatever pattern we wish. But if there is an official currency which is required to pay taxes then being able to print your own currency (to counterfeit) is an advantage which should be shared with everyone... if one group of people is able to print the tax-enforced currency then this creates a kind of apartheid where one group of people are treated differently under the law. To be able to (legally) print your own fiat currency places you above those who cannot which is a form of discrimination and is unsustainable.

To have a banking license means that your liabilities are recognised and secured (guaranteed) by the state and so then you are effectively able to print your own currency. Institutions which are able to issue their own currency are themselves quasi-state entities and we can think of them in similar terms to the more familiar elements of the public sector... but with banks they have private assets and profits which means that whilst banks have the advantages of a public entity (being protected from insolvency) they also generate profits for their owners. Banks with a banking licence cannot fail despite having private assets and profits.

There should be no banking licences because it is unfair and unreasonable to expect non-banking entities to compete in a market where some of the participants are able to print their own money. No one apart from the government (and other genuine state entities) should have the power to print money... those who can print money must be democratically accountable otherwise the state is being hostile to those people who cannot print their own money.

Guaranteed banks need the people to be ignorant

Banks are treated differently from the rest of the economy (they have deposit insurance) but the general public is not fully aware of the implications of this. People prefer themselves to banks... that is to say they do not like being in economic servitude to the banks... we can deduce this from how they (the people) react to other forms of slavery and so then we can deduce that their tolerance in a democracy for deposit insurance is either due to the fact that they do not know about it or they are unaware of its consequences. If people know about the realities of deposit insurance then they would not be tolerant of it and in a democracy it would cease to exist. The existence of deposit insurance is possible only if the people do not know about it. Deposit insurance is a secret kept from the public in a democracy.

When people find out about the nature of banking and deposit insurance they will cease to tolerate politicians who are not in favour of letting the banks fail like a normal business. Knowledgeable voters will not want the government to maintain deposit insurance and so the banks will fail when the people find out about how the banking system works... because they will no longer endorse deposit insurance.

The banks will fail when the voters become knowledgeable about banking.

Banks can't print money

Counterfeiting is impossible because no one can print money. Money must have some underlying value if it does not (as with fiat) then it is not money.

Full reserve banking is a natural right

To have anything other than full reserve banking requires support for the banking system from the state. Banks cannot practice so-called fractional reserve banking without deposit insurance otherwise there will be a bank run. It might be possible (for short periods of time) for a bank to have fewer reserves than deposits in a free market but very soon this will result in a bank run. For banks to be able to inflate the money supply to the extent which they have been able to do recently requires the support of the government.

But we have a right for the state not to support banks in this way since it is of no advantage to us (the banks are not providing a public service) and it is a cost to us. Socialism of this kind is justified only if the government is subsidising a public good such has healthcare or education. But since the banks do not claim to be primarily for the public good and since their assets are privately owned (for profit) this is not socialism but merely a government subsidy of a private business which is invalid. Even if socialism is valid this is not socialism. Neither can we claim that the banks provide a vital public utility and that despite them being privately-owned it is still in the interests of the state to protect them. If this is true then there is no limit to the extent to which this argument can be made. If the banks are vital then they should be given all the money they ask for which could be infinite and so if we are not to be owned by the banks then we cannot describe them as vital in this sense. No private firms are vital only the public sector is vital (if this concept exists). No private firm is too important to fail.

Since we have a right that banks are not subsidised by the state then fractional reserve banking cannot exist in any meaningful sense (the banks will not be able to inflate the money supply) and we will have full reserve banking. Since we have a right not to have fractional reserve banking then we have a right to have full reserve banking and full reserve banking is a natural right.

Fractional reserve banking is torture

We can define torture in this context to mean harm imposed on someone by the state for no reason. It is different from the normal execution of justice. Torture by the government is imposed arbitrarily.

Fractional reserve banking is a form of torture because it causes harm to people for no reason. We assume (as we can) that there is a fiat currency in place and that it is possible for the state to subsidise fractional reserve banking. (If there is no fiat currency then the government cannot subsidise fractional reserve banking.) So then it is possible for the state to enable the banks to inflate the money supply. This is torture because it removes value from the rest of the population who do not print money. Since there is a fiat currency in existence this extraction of wealth cannot be avoided by anyone and so this hurts everyone in the economy. There is no reason for this subsidy of the banking system via deposit insurance and so by the definition above it is torture.

The government bans things

We do not have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot do just as we do not have a right to tell them how to behave. Prohibitionism is inherently authoritarian because it relies on the state having authority over the individual. Since in a free country we are free to act however we like provided we do not hurt others then prohibitionism is inherently illiberal and statist. Authoritarianism is wrong because we have control and responsibility for our own lives. Prohibitionism is inherently authoritarian and for that reason it is wrong. If there is no government then prohibitionism would be impossible because no one would take instructions from another person. Prohibitionism relies on the existence of the state to be justified and for that reason it is false. Without the government there would be no prohibition of drugs and so there should be no prohibition of drugs. Without a state there would be no prohibition of drugs and we would be free to consume whatever we like.

Fractional reserve banking is bad

It is bad for humanity if a bank or any organisation is immune from failure and able to inflate the money supply. If someone (apart from the government) is able to inflate the money supply it is likely they will do so meaning that they will be able to acquire a surfeit of property and assets. This arrangement is bad overall and it could even be argued that it is bad for the agency which can counterfeit the currency because they are destroying the planet. (Being rich in hell is worse than being relatively poor in a healthy world.) Even if being able to inflate the currency is not bad for those able to do it it is certainly bad overall so then it is better (overall) not to have state-guaranteed fractional reserve banking.