It is a symbol that is used to represent wealth, but it has no inherent value of its own, unlike gold, which can be used in jeweler and computing.
Therefore, accumulation of money is only an accumulation of symbols that represent wealth. How much wealth a person will get out of their money determines on how clearly they understand what genuine wealth is.
We can define wealth constructively as “that which provides for the organism/environment field, all basic requirements for optimum functioning.”
Therefore, money is only required for wealth if a person is unable to provide these basic requirements for optimum functioning out of their own ingenuity, or if a person lives in an environment where the only way to procure said requirements is through trade via a monetary system.
As for individual freedom, the individual as a separate entity is a myth. You cannot talk about an organism without talking about its environment, hence the “organism/environment field”. When we point at an individual, we should note that our pointing is not a designation of identity, but of position. “Individual” is the word we give to a particular action of the whole cosmos as centered on a particular point in space time.
It’s also worth noting that in a situation of finite resources, where resources are represented by money and where money allows for individual freedom, the extent to which one person hoards money is the extent to which his neighbors lose their freedom.
So there is no true freedom in allowing an individual to accumulate mass amounts of wealth, as he restricts freedom elsewhere so that he may clutch more of it to himself.
But, if we remember that the individual is inseparable from his environment, the extent to which he restricts the freedom of his environment is also the extent to which he restricts himself.
In every case then, the accumulation of excess money as opposed to genuine wealth is antithetical to individual freedom.