I don't see why you're being rude. I'm not arguing in bad faith. It's a complicated subject. At least I think it's a complicated subject. Maybe you aren't thinking deeply enough about the implications.

Money should represent a store of value. Like storing extra rice for the winter. But when we want to use money to fund large projects we find there isn't enough of that stored rice to cover all the demands for credit. So either we have a credit crunch which constrains economic growth, or some entity, be it government or banks creates fictitious money not based on real stored value in order to facilitate the economic growth.

You say, "there was no FRL necessary at all" when the government issued their own currency rather than borrow it from a fed bank. And yet the history shows that those colonial scrips issued during the revolutionary era all devalued into worthlessness because the government issued too much of it to pay for their debts. There was no real stored value, no rice in a granary, backing up that paper. It was fictitious money used to facilitate production of goods needed to wage war.

So why is this government money printing substantially different from a fed printing and loaning the fictitious money to a government?

I don't think I have an answer to this problem. I tend to think all money should be based on a tangible asset so that it can be a reliable store of value. I like to think that when somebody works hard and sets aside part of their labor for future needs it should preserve its value, like gold bars in a vault. The idea that someone can eliminate the value of that stored labor at the stroke of a pen is odious and smells like theft. But that concept of money seems to constrain the availability of credit and thus slow down economic growth.

I don't find your assertion that this ceases to be a problem by eliminating the fed and FRL to be persuasive. I think you're just ignoring the issue.