there are two distinct questions, whether FRB can persist in a market, and whether its actions breach natural law.
if the contracts are to be made explicit lend to banks on short call with risk of default basis, then as acknowledge FRB can operate in harmony with natural law, it is not to be indicted on moral grounds anymore than any gambling instituion is. and the fact that it is in a freemarket will necessarily dampen its rapacious moneyexpansion to less than one would expect from a socialised banking system, i.e. fed reserve version of it.
so i say there are two forks one can take.
A)suggest FRB is a worthwhile system for entrepeneurs to consider launching, but they must be explicit in their advertising and contracts with customers that the customers are making risky call loans; then there might come to pass legitimate institutions of the gamblebank nature, likely be in competition with weplaysafebanks.
or
B) suggest that FRB is a worthwhile system for entrepeneurs to consider launching, but they can have bizarrely confused contracts, like ‘your money is kept safe for you on demand’ , ‘we pay you interest by lending out your money when you dont demand it’ and this is to promote illegitimate contracts, and fraud, etc.
im not sure which of the two FRB supporters are pushing for