Why otherwise fine works end up blaming debt instead of Statism?

Economics Economics Questions
1

Just finished No Treason, and at the end of a wonderful writ I find Zeitgeist!

“The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay “national debts,” so-called — that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered — so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.”

So, if a country just defaults of its debt, there would be nothing wrong with the State anymore? As in, taxation becomes voluntary or inflation becomes beneficial? The problem is national debt, and not the State’s right to forcefully require any payment?

Or, to continue from Zeiteist, if the Fed was “nationalized” and the Treasury printed dollars, would all be fine? What about or the , which’s Central bank are “government owned”? Are they supposed to be all right?

Where do such ideas arise from? Excusing Spooner, is their modern revival a way to shift the blame form statism to indebtness and pave the way for the ceremonial “nationalization” of the Fed?

2

“At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.” -Jacque Fresco, founder of the Zeitgeist movement.

The Zeitgeistists are all about discrediting money entirely, and having resources directly commanded by an enlightened government.

For an example of moneyless governments in recent history, I would recommend researching the moneyless Soviet budget of 1929, and the economic principles of the Khmer Rouge. Both movements, it may be noted, did not produce the amazing and wondrous technological advances that Mr Fresco imagines despite doing away with the evils of money.