RosaL, I have a problem. That "business" may not be socially productive, and because of that lesser known function of money, at some point that small businessperson will go out there to hire labour.
l, it makes me a bit nervous, too. But I think there's probably a place for a single-person workplace (so to speak). But I'd make it illegal for them to hire anyone! (I might be misunderstanding you, though ....)
If you replace money as we know it today with a labour-based electronic exchange medium that doesn't circulate (especially at the consumer end point), the commodity production M-C-M' or M-C-P'-C'-M' will be severely constrained if not eliminated altogether.
You got my e-mails, remember?
If not hiring labour is an absolute then you can't have a business, and everyone will have to remain state employees, whether that is socially useful or not.
If you can only be a one person business then you can't adapt as needed. Its far too specialised a niche- in any context. Just not sustainable over any length of time.
There is the intermediate solution of cooperative politics and laws, but that is dependent upon prohibiting any form of subcontracting (hiring other coops to do certain things before selling the final product).
(In any case, NO ONE gets to hire labour.)
So, if my neighor ran her own gardening business and I wanted to work for her part-time to earn some extra cash during the summers, would I be prohibited from doing so in your ideal world?
You have in your head the bourgeois concepts of "liberty" and "equality." The concepts of labour emancipation and emancipatory politics are not synonymous with "liberty."