I missed this earlier.
There is a confusion here. The argument in favour of a gold standard isn't necessarily linked to gold. I do think Gold is pretty suitable (it is rare but not too rare, it's durable and so on) and it obviously has become a strong candidate by virtue of its position in our culture.
The argument for having a metal based currency instead of a fiat one is not in any way specific for gold. I don't think those arguments are particularly convincing myself, but they don't relate to shinyness.
Ummm but that "virtue of its position in our culture" is in fact, that gold is shiny and suitable for ornaments, no?
EDIT: Re-reading my original post I will note that my point on Gold was pretty much a side observation. When is anyone going to get down to the meat of my post?
Yeah, sure. You still seem to miss the point that the argument for a gold standard has very little to do with the fact that it's based on the metal gold. Just like the argument for paper money isn't really about the virtues of paper as a material for bills.
I've never seen anyone make a point of the specific metal.
Also, you seem to think that libertarians necessarily think economic growth is a political end, but I've never met one who does (and I know many libertarians). I think most libertarians would think that the individual's freedom to smoke opium supercedes any governmental concerns about economic productivity. That's hardly a contradiction since economic productivity, to my knowledge, isn't a part of libertarian philosophy.
