> The problem is that code doesn't afford freedom. Money does.
What do you mean by "freedom?"
I would argue in fact that code, as a tool for producing goods and services, affords greater freedom than money does. The argument is specifically about, IMO, the question of restrictions on what goods and services can be provided. Those restrictions I would agree are anti-freedom but it has nothing to do with money per se.
If you are paid in chickens, does that make you any less free?
So you are arguing that a barter system provides more freedom than a money based economy.
I'm genuinely interested and open to being convinced of that, but you've only said "I would argue that.." and then offered conclusions without actually presenting the argument.
Not really. Money is an abstraction. The freedom is not in money. The freedom is in what you make that you bring to market. Whether you barter or trade for money is really a secondary concern.
What do you mean by "freedom?"
I would argue in fact that code, as a tool for producing goods and services, affords greater freedom than money does. The argument is specifically about, IMO, the question of restrictions on what goods and services can be provided. Those restrictions I would agree are anti-freedom but it has nothing to do with money per se.
If you are paid in chickens, does that make you any less free?