Here's how Graeber concludes his great book, which I too have been reading. Debt, The First 5000 Years, pages 390-91:

It seems to me that we are long overdue for some kind of BIblical-style Jubillee: One that would affect both international debt and consumer debt. It would be salutary not just because it would relieve so much genuine human suffering, but also because it would be our way of reminding ourselves that money is not ineffable, that paying one's debts is not the essence of morality, that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything, it is the ability to all to agree to arrange things in a different way, It is significant, I think, that that since Hammurabi, great imperial states have always resisted this kind of politics. Athens and Rome established the paradigm: even when confronted with continual debt crises, they insisted on legislating round the edges, softening the impact, eliminating obvious abuses like debt slavery, using the spoils of empire to throw all sorts of benefits at their poorer citizens (who, after all, provided the rank and file of their armies), so as to keep them more or less afloat--but all in such a way as never to allow a challenge to the principle of debt itself. The governing class of the United States seems to have taken a remarkably similar approach....

What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence. If freedom (real freedom) is the ability to make friends, then it is also, necessarily, the ability to make real promises. What sorts of promises might genuinely free men and women make to each other? At this point we can't even say. It's more a question of how we can get to a place that will allow us to find out.

So, corrupt math and violence. Libertarians should be against that, right?

NOTE "Freedom is the ability to make friends." Lot s of food for thought there.