As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.
Well here I disagree because two societies could trade with gold because both realised it served as a good medium of exchange. No central enforcement was necessary. Both parties were
willing to accept it, both recognized it as being in their best interest. This is important since they had an independent yard stick by which they could measure the worth of their production and the production of others. With sound money you can only enrich yourself if you produce what others need and are
willing to trade for.
There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.
That is not what I asked. Do I have the right to misspend what I've produced?
Or rather, do you have the right to
force me to spend or produce in a fashion you deem better than my own judgement,
even if you are correct?