Comment: First, unlike you Murray was

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: you're just confusing the (see in situ)

First, unlike you Murray was

First, unlike you Murray was perfectly capable of not confusing coercion and fraud. Reminder, they aren't the same thing.

Second, as practiced today FRB is indeed fraudulent and coercive.

Murray was a nonconsequentialist and wanted to believe that there would be some sort of free market libertarian constitution that would naturally and organically come into existence in a free society that everyone would abide. It's in this context that he thought it would be 'banned'. His elemental belief in his understanding of natural law here does conflict with the NAP he also believes in. Walter Block continues this tradition today. But note he does think people will all have 'agreed' to this convention, so it's not exactly the same as a state banning something. In just the same sense that murder is universally condemned in common laws, he assumed that FRB, if understood for what it is, would be condemned and murderers, along with FRB bankers and other types of thieves would be societal aberrations.

Personally I find this to be muddy, a bit optimistic to say the least and perilously bordering on democracy.

Full application of the NAP does imply acceptance of law that may not adhere completely to the NAP. Put another way, to universally enforce the NAP is a violation of the NAP. Murray didn't have time to get all the way there, although he seemed to be on the way.

Most current (non Walter) thought is that the NAP cannot be positively enforced, only negatively. In my view this is the only logically and ethically consistent understanding and it also is consonant with an evolutionary understanding of morality.