Thanks Thomas. I agree there are other ways we can go about improving the way things work, but I feel it's best to start with what we've got and what we all already use, which is money, and it really is the most efficient tool we've got for allocating.
Let's take your store example. People can walk in and get free food. Well, how much free food? Can they take anything they want of any amount? Are their needs 2,000 calories a day and someone else's 1,500 or 3,000? How do we best measure such things? How do we prevent the abuse of someone walking into a store, clearing it out, and selling the food to others or entirely wasting it?
These are the kinds of problems we've already solved with cash in limited amounts. If someone gets $1,000, they can go into any store at all, and buy as much food as they want up to that amount. They can't go over that amount. They can also spend hardly anything at all on food, in the form of rice and beans, and instead choose to use the bulk of that $1,000 elsewhere in the form of housing, or on starting capital for a business? Cash opens up a huge array of options that just doesn't exist when we instead provide in-kind benefits.
As for positive money, yes, I agree it would be great to get away from debt-based money.