1.) Under a fixed supply money, there is a systemic 'war of all against all', they claim. With an expanding money supply, they claim, such tensions obviously disperse and capitalism may be allowed to flourish under more moderate and humane competition for the money.

2.) Well, where do you want this 'humane' money expansion? In the deep mines, where the poor and nameless then have to struggle against the very mountains, or in the hands of the State, where the fruits of the labor of its toiling subjects by definition must fund the seigniorage?

3.) Thinking that there is an ethical way around having to provide goods and services in exchange for money, unless they wish to be charitable, is fantasy. And if such charitability is widespread, it would make the need for systemic expansion of the money moot in the first place.