The incoherence of anti-Fed propaganda

I find the anti-Federal Reserve propaganda bizarre, for several reasons.

One, it promotes false urban legends, like the claim that the Fed never gets audited, despite easy-to-find evidence to the contrary.

Two, it often promotes conspiracy theories about the Fed's origins, like the one about the meeting of some politicians and financiers at Jekyll Island in 1910 to come up with ideas for a central bank. Ooh, spooky. So what if some of the eventual Fed's stakeholders had a meeting? Around the time of the Constitutional Convention, many early Americans accused the Framers who met in Philadelphia in 1787 of forming a conspiracy to enslave the American people with their new Constitution, a bit of American history you don't hear much about these days from Constitutional fundamentalists. What if someone today published an anti-Constitution book calling the U.S. Constitution "The Creature from the Pennsylvania State House"? Not even Glenn Beck would take the author seriously.

Three, the people who created the Federal Reserve System all died decades ago. Dead people can't tell us what to do with our central banking institutions now, a fact which also demonstrates the pointlessness of conspiracy theories about the Fed's origins.

Four, the Federal Reserve System does not create money out of "thin air." The U.S. Government agrees to accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment for taxes, and nobody considers the money he pays in taxes "thin air." The "thin air" argument will make sense the day the government refuses Federal Reserve Notes and demands beaver pelts or other stores of value to discharge tax obligations.

Five, the propaganda presents us with false alternatives: Either keep the status quo, or else "abolish the Fed." If the Fed's behavior causes problems, why not just put it under better regulation instead?

Six, the "abolish the Fed" idea also raises the prospect that the Fed's private owners could argue that they deserve compensation from the U.S. Government for a "taking" under eminent domain, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fed- haters argue that the Fed's owners wouldn't deserve compensation because they ran an illegal organization, despite the fact that the Fed has existed in good legal standing, and in plain sight, for nearly a century. But what if the courts decide in favor of the Fed's owners, and rule that the U.S. Government, using our tax money, owes them some colossal figure for their property? Do the Fed-haters want to get rid of the Fed so badly that they'd agree to pay onerous additional taxes as the price of its abolition?