[ahomescu1]

Money is both a "unit of account" and "medium of exchange". You can certainly have both of those without government. In some societies, people used seashells, salt, gold coins, or many other things as money. Bitcoin certainly counts as a "non-government money".

Since money is used as a medium of exchange, it's essentially a placeholder for your labor (when you receive it from your employer/customers as payment) or value provided to others. It is arguable whether society has as much right over an individual's labor as he/she does, I think they don't (while society may have a contribution, it might be significantly below 50%).

One last and minor thing we'll have to disagree on: I don't think government equals society. An individual can be a part of society without being part of government, and I also believe government sometimes represents its own interests at the expense of society.

[littletimmy]

OK let's clarify some basics. You cannot have either unit of account of medium of exchange without a government. Tell me one time in history that has happened. The government is fundamental to any economic system at all.

I know that in an abstract imaginary world you may think something else but that's all it is: imaginary. In the real world, no society = no money = no economics = no government.

[ahomescu1]

Anything that is valuable, fungible and divisible could be used as money (you could even use barrels of oil). For examples, see [1]. Again, a great contemporary example is Bitcoin (not sure why you're ignoring that, it's a great example of money that exists in spite of government, not because of it).

Perhaps what you're referring to is legal tender, which indeed requires a government to exist. However, not all money is legal tender (for example, euros are not legal tender in the US, afaik).

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money