as interesting and useful as it us to understand the current money system and how to undo it or change it and the sort of incorrect charge that rothbardians (if there is such a thing) woudl ban it. additionally it should be asked if it is harmful?
it seems sort of empty to wonder about consistency of rothbardians and not question or investigate if what they would like to see banned (perhaps in a enlightend sense) does harm.
in another discussion about the 95% value loss of the dollar, an individual posting says inflation (of the variety done now) hurts most people.
i said…
"if you were alive to see your dollar lose 95% percent of its purchasing power and not receive 95 percent more dollars it (inflation) would really matter…and may still matter to some even though they do have 95 % more dollars.
another poster said: I think it definitely hurts some people. In fact, I think it hurts most people."
.
i assume this person thinks value robbing inflation hurts most.
the poster of this thread says "they (rothbardians, if there even is such a thing) believe that Fractional reserve banking must be banned, though it naturally emerged through voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation. "
i dont know if the original poster was around when frb voluntarily came about (centureis ago?) or if it some how took root after a swindle of some sorts.
i have also seen numerous references to inflation as an ill or a disease or preceeded by numerous other negative adjectives. all throughout lrc and mises.
if some believe it should be banned, i guess it would be because it harms. this harm is caused by…peoples own ignorance? govt tyranny? frb, even the market variety, has shown itself to be more wealth robbing than building?