When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim

Assertions:

• Textbook economics asserts that Central Banking & Fractional Reserve Banking are necessary, benevolent, and good for the economy.
• Political philosophy first asserts [a] a coercive force making decisions for people is benevolent and necessary, and then assets [b] a specific political philosophy is ideal (with some slight variation).
• Regulation asserts that for all named individuals and businesses, they must [a] adhere to a strict behavioral code and not deviate or [b] specific behaviors are deemed legal (and therefore moral, etc)

I see the capacity of human intellect, creativity, and interaction to have an almost unlimited number of possibilities, consisting of an entire spectrum of choices known or yet to be imagined by 7-billion humans. Therefore proposing that a single inflexible idea (regulation, central banking, fractional reserve banking, government, democracy, socialism, religion, etc) should be enforced on all of humanity, is a very significant and narcissistic proposition. One’s inability to imagine alternatives does not imply their ideals are the “best” amongst a spectrum of possibilities.

I fully support one’s capacity to voluntarily join (and leave) whichever type of ‘government,’ or economic system they choose with other like-minded individuals. There are perhaps economic or social models that even you and I are unaware of, which may in-fact absolutely dominate existing models in terms of human productivity and well-being.

Under my current understand of the world, my only propositions (or assertions) are the [a] non-aggression principle and [b] property rights. I do not propose these concepts are perfection, but rather that of all the concepts I am aware of, these two concepts will best promote long-term human-wellbeing. I also see this as a means of allowing superior alternatives yet to be imagined to be unrestrained and flourish.