Uskala Maki argues that money was established by human action not human design.
Gordon objects that
It isn’t a necessary condition for the process to come about that the people in that society didn’t intend it.
Imagine a large group of people on a desert island who are familiar with the concept of money but don’t have any money — all their dollars were lost at sea. They also have read Menger and Mises and want to create money, doing so through the process the Austrians describe. They could consciously set the process in motion, and money would result. The process need not be unintended.
Well, not quite. They could not aim at the establishment of money directly. Their desire for money would be a mere wish, incapable of being satisfied by any deliberate action.
Money would have to arise from people pursuing their self-interest in producing and exchanging on the market as per the usual story: a certain commodity with use-value would gradually acquire exchange-value until the latter came to dominate the former, etc.
Even if money’s creation is not unintended, it is unplanned and unexecuted. So Gordon’s point is strictly speaking correct, but repairing Maki’s argument is easy.