Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side! What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed." They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!
As for force??? The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them. The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor. In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.
I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.
All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off. And who's reaping the rewards? How is that not indenturement?
Let's first just take your sentence and try to get you to reach a conclusion.
"All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid." Let's just assume everything about that is true. So what? What exactly do you think that means? How do you think that makes you an indentured servant? Do you think the job you work is because of the central bank and not because you need to perform something of value to the economy in order to eat? Are you under the delusion that you work directly for the central bank, and that you don't have a choice in the matter? Do you think this "debt" means the money in your wallet is owed to someone, or is going to be called in to pay the "debt?" Do you think that the central bank issuing fiat is the reason you have to work or that the work you do is to pay back the central bank's debt? You must think these things, otherwise I can't wrap my head around what you think is the implication for this statement.
Now let's follow through on your premise to a conclusion. Money is issued by debt that cannot be repaid, according to you. So I guess first you're assuming that it needs to be, which isn't true. Fiat is issued through debt, and if they the issuer wanted to collect on the debt, all they'd be doing is devaluing the money they collect. Fiat money is a zero sum game because it is simply a representation of the value of the goods and services in an economy. So it doesn't matter how much money is issued, it doesn't change how much goods and services exist in an economy. If the "debt" can never be repaid, it doesn't matter. Fiat is only representative value anyway. So call in all the loans on the "debt," all the issuer would be doing is collecting worthless paper, and the more they collect the more worthless it is. This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister for the economic system. Goods and services have value independent of fiat. Fiat doesn't give goods and services value, goods and services give fiat value, because fiat is just the means of trade.