[arcticbull]

Money is representation of value within a society, but it only has value within that society - and to the extent it can be traded abroad. The value is protected by the legal system, by the army, facilitated by the roads, bridges and infrastructure. Just because you get a "dollar" or "ruble" in exchange for work doesn't intrinsically mean that you are owed anything. That obligation comes from the system in which you, your employer and your fellow countryfolk coexist and cooperate.

You cannot divorce one from the other.

[edit] (They earned units that they could exchange immediately or at some future time. Whether or not that amounted to wealth is based on what those units could or did turn into at the point of measure within the framework of the society in which they exist.)

[tarboreus]

Eh. Obviously we need governments for game theoretic reasons. We need soldiers because other people have soldiers, we need governments because other people have governments. But in practice the government is often a huge bully. The fact that we can't spend money we make within these systems without getting snooped on for every transactions stinks. And, guess what, rich people and billionaires are not subject to the same limitations. So yes, while we need a government, there is a tension between individual autonomy and the government, and methods of exercising autonomy outside of the government's ability to count beans and snoop on you are just fine in my book.