> The only reason anyone demands the currency itself is being forced to pay taxes in it.

And yet half of Africa and significant parts of South America use dollars. Not because they're taxed in dollars.

> If I control the same portion of the currency, then my buying-power is unchanged and we just get inflation.

Nope. There's a lot of exceptions to that. If I were to give you a million dollars, and you invest it in "making a better mousetrap" and make the portions of America that people want mouse-free actually mouse-free (increase in value), and get them to pay 2 million dollars do you for that. One million repays the original million. One million is your profit. And one million is in houses that don't need repairs anywhere near as quickly as before, that's the reason people bought those mousetraps in the first place. That's growing value, and it's a win-win for everyone involved.

Second big exception is government (the FED in the US case).

Third big exception is banks.

> the government influences what happens or not.

True, but the government could just as well just legislate all of these things out of existence. And with the same problem. Too much tax on alcohol and bootlegging becomes the norm. Outright outlawing alcohol has the same result.

> There's nothing about government spending (or taxing) that makes it good or bad inherently. It's just a matter of the actual effect of the policies.

Yes there is. Government spending is inherently non-productive (in the economic sense of not resulting in future economic growth). At best it is artificial demand. That means money spent by the government is used once, and then it's gone. That's why you can compare paying taxes with buying alcohol (and drinking it).

Money invested by the private sector is far, see the mousetrap example above.

> You could make an evidence-based argument that most of the government direction is interference in the market and mostly causes problems and is negative. Whatever your position, it's a question of policies and effects. The facts of fiat currency spending and taxing don't change.

Nope. I don't have to. It is very much part of economic canon that governments don't invest. They are just unproductive users of funds. Most government activities are strictly negative for the economy for obvious reasons. They may be a necessity, but that doesn't make them any less negative. Let's take car registrations as an example. That requires tax, or the system would get flooded. And it requires employees, desk spaces, pencils, ... and the net result of that, at best, is that people obey the law. Nothing of value got produced at all.

Whilst there are exceptions (like infrastructure), they do not form a decent percentage of the budget.

> That's a non-issue. There is no such thing as the National Debt becoming "due". There's no basis to even talk about that, it's not a thing and can't be.

I have quite a few treasury certificates that certainly seem to have a due date. Perhaps I need new glasses. Importantly for your argument, they will get new interest rates and the payments will be different on this date, and of course the government needs to still have an acceptable credit rating. So they certainly come due in the same sense that debt on a credit card comes due.

> The "National Debt" is literally private savings. Wiping out the "Debt" is the same as wiping out the private savings of the currency.

I don't get where this comes from. This is flat out wrong. The national debt is generally defined to be what the Treasury owes (usually not including other governments like municipalities), and has nothing to do with banks, other than that they own some of it.