That article was interesting about the utilitarian Mises vs the natural law Rothbard, but it was completely wrong about the 100% reserve clause Rothbard insisted as essential being necessarily enforced by the state.
It sounds like the writer has not heard of Rothbard's proposed anarchocapitalist systems, polycentric laws and competitive arbitration and enforcement organisations.
Yeah, here's the relevant quote where he gets it wrong, or at least uses misleading wording:
> Mises openly rejected the idea that government should have any role in setting a specific percentage of gold and silver or other assets, including bank deposits, in relation to their issuance of what he called fiduciary media, but which hard money advocates refer to as fiat money. In contrast, Rothbard called for 100% reserves.
It sounds like the writer has not heard of Rothbard's proposed anarchocapitalist systems, polycentric laws and competitive arbitration and enforcement organisations.