Again you’re assuming (1) which is not true. You can have rules for money for which “spending how you want” fits within those rules. Bitcoin has rules but when someone says they can spend it how they want, they are saying it can be spent any way that is consensus valid. You assuming there are no rules for spending how you want is incorrect and not true to the meaning of the statement. You’re making your own definition of his statement and using a proof by definition that doesn’t apply.

If I say “I can spend money how I want” (A) and you say “so money doesn’t have rules” (B), there is no reasonable way to build that logical consequence (A=>B). If you try and prove it by saying (B) implies “money isn’t money without rules” (C), and (C && A) is contradictory by definition of money, something about those series of statements (your argument) is logically inconsistent