With the example of the car, you're not only renouncing to its use for a while. The car will eventually crash after X miles/kilometers. Even a building has a limited lifetime. Money doesn't.
Yes, so? The issue is still the same, you are getting compensated by renouncing for its use for a while in both cases. Why do you think its ok in one case and not in the other.
With free money, you would still rent your money, but just at the risk premium, the basic interest would not exist.
Such a system is not posible economically but lets ignore that for now. The question is why interest is inhrently bad to you.
The main difference is that more houses could be produced to lower the rental price, but "money cannot be produced". If it's produced, its production costs have nothing to do with its use as a value symbol, that's why money can be made of paper and bits.
Why do you want to build more houses? Do you realize that the role of money is to efficiently allocate resources, not build more of everything? If you decide to build more houses you are renouncing to build other stuff. Is that an adecuate decission? Interest rates coordinate that process and allow for an efficient allocation of resources satisfying the needs of the people. If you drop it to 0 the information is lost and nobody knows what type of products will be profitable or not.
It's just a symbol, an agreement, not a commodity.
Why this agreement can not be around a commodity?
In reality, money is a product.
Why the costs of production of houses is not near the earns of its lifetime rentals? Because that's not enough for capital.
Houses must be at least as profitable as money. Therefore we can't build that many houses because the financial market won't allow it.
We just had a housing bubble with an excess of builiding houses thanks to the government regulated financial system.
Money should be free in the sense that you should be able to choose the mony you want.
Can you elaborate on this "discordination in the economy" and how it would lead to poverty?
You're ok with Ripple then?
Im ok with any voluntary system. The problem is, as stated above, that the ideas of Gessel would lead to discordination and poverty. The problem with Gessel is that he had no idea of capital structure and had this idea that the more the money circulates the richer everybody is, which is evidently false (if it is not evident to you, then comment).