Hi kongreif, I try to break down professor Quigley's quote and more in the blog. If I succeeded.. you can be the judge :)

I think it works as an analogy, but the term isn’t broadly appropriate because the money itself holds the value being exchanged. So despite it behaving like one because it doesn’t have direct utility, it also doesn’t have any specific counterparty risk and is a liability for no specific individual, so it isn’t really a “debt” either.

_Fiat_ money does have counterparty risk (I realize you are talking about "money" the abstract concept, or "sound money")

Thank you!