It's just such an odd contention

The idea of recreating victory gardens seems to interest various people and given that we’re all liberals around here why not? If digging the front lawn for vegetables is what turns you on then have at it. It’s just that in one piece of praise for the idea we find this claim:

Together, we helped meet each other’s basic needs through an exchange, rather than using money.

Clearly the implication here is that exchange without the use of money is in some manner more moral. Or better, outstanding in some way. Which is the bit that we think such an odd contention.

For without money you can only exchange with those you actually know. What money as a medium of exchange allows is to do those exchanges with people you don’t know. The web of cooperation can extend - a la “I Pencil” - to all members of our species, not just to those in the immediate vicinity.

So why is it moral, better in some manner, to only be cooperating with those few who share your geography, culture, location? We do have reasonable authority for the idea that all men are our brother so why shouldn’t we use the means, money, that allows us to cooperate and exchange with them all?

It just seems so dreadfully odd to insist that voluntary exchange is wondrous but that it’s righteous to limit it.