Comment: you're just confusing the

(See in situ)

you're just confusing the

you're just confusing the issue with the 59 paragraph blitz. Rothy said all FRB was coercion, by resorting the claim that it is inherently fraudulent. For it to be made illegal in his scheme, it had to be designated as coercion. Its obviously not violence, so he had to whitewash the inconsistency by claiming it to be inherently fradulent.

This is obviously nonsense, and hasn't got anything to do with FRB today vs. in the time of Walter Bagehot. FRB is voluntary, non coercive, non fraudulent, free contractual business practice. It is a free market activity, and Rothbard argued it should be banned. He advocated 100% reserve only, on the basis that FRB was fraudulent by nature.

Whether it would be widespread and predominant in the market, as argued by Selgin and other free bankers, or would be rooted out by the market, as some argue, is not what's at issue. It's the claim that holding a fractional reserve is inherently fraudulent. The issue isn't whether bank A or bank B lied and violated a contract. It is the claim that FRB is fraud by its nature, even if all parties agree to it.