It would be better if we owned ourselves

Failure to give someone the right to refuse suggests, or relies upon, the concept that others are owned by the person being aggressive. Aggression is a misunderstanding of property ownership and rights.

It is a crime to be aggressive in this way, to deny someone the right to refuse offers. If the customer owns themselves then to deny the right to refuse is a crime. It would be better if we could refuse taxes.

We can be responsible for ourselves

We have the right to refuse all offers. If we are not allowed to refuse an offer then it is being imposed upon us by force and is criminal, unless there is a mitigating reason. We can be sure there is no crime if we have allowed the other person (or people) to refuse. If everyone can refuse there is no problem.

The ability to refuse means that we are not harmed. We cannot claim a harm has been done to us, that we have suffered a crime, if we have consented and not refused. There is no crime if we can refuse.

Private commercial banks print Government money

If banks are given the legal right to print money then why not let everyone else do it? Why not let everyone print money if the banks can? Why leave inflation to commercial (and central) banks? For what reason is it so difficult to get a banking licence? Why not let everyone print cash?

Socialism is a form of slavery

We have a right to do what we want if it does not harm other people, but we do not have a right to force and threaten other people into doing what we want. This is the difference between owning yourself and owning other people. We do not own other people. To get Government Services means we own other people because we must force them to do what we want to pay for it. Socialism relies upon slavery. Without slavery there is no Socialism.

Why not let people have control over their own life?

Democracy allows Socialists to have control over the lives of other people.

But we do not ask people which is the best system to live under, instead we ask which party is preferred. The jury in a court is attempting to get to the truth. Elections, it is often assumed, are not so much about getting to the truth as expressing a preference, between parties. Why not have freedom instead of a big State? Why not let people make their own decisions, for their lives? Why not let them have control over their life?

Banks can issue digital money

Digital (computer) money has now replaced paper money. Banks don't actually print fiat paper currency, but they do issue extra digital bank credit which causes inflation.

People are unaware that the banks are empty

People don't (seem to) realise the banks are empty.

If everyone took their money out there wouldn't be nearly enough. Assuming people like and value money why would they not want to be first in the queue? Or do they think the Government will pay? By printing money? Or are we at the stage where people consider bank deposits to be money and that banks can issue new currency? If we are not at that stage then it must be true that people are unaware, of the banks being empty.