In other words, change ownership, and therefore direct central manipulating currency debasement control from private to public (thus "democratizing it" - PUKE), and change the mechanism and channels by which the COUNTERFEITED FIAT CURRENCY enters into circulation.
The whole "pray to it's(sic) alter(sic)" characterization is absolutely meaningless, as that is unqualified. Not everyone has the same idea with regard to gold and other hard specie, and its role as currency in the market. Still's statement that "Gold is concentrated money" was stated without explanation, and as if that was a bad thing. He meant to say that it was scarce (a great thing), as he argues that it would end up "concentrated" into the hands of a few. Well, if gold is the ONLY currency (again, fucking "fiat", only now applying strictly to gold) then we could at least argue directly along those lines. I would agree that nothing has been solved, because once again a MONOPOLY on the only acceptable currency will have been established.Think he's partly right about gold and those that pray to it's alter.
For some the question is not whether currency should be centrally controlled/debased or not, but only WHO is most properly suited for that role (i.e. the state or a private entity like the Fed). WRONG FUCKING QUESTION. A choice between lesser evils of thieves is not a choice. There should be no single currency, and no ENTITY in a position to centrally control COMPETING currencies.
I am not in favor of a "gold backed" dollar, because that does nothing to eliminate the original abuses, by collusion between banks and the state. It's not a question of which of these is best suited for central planning or control. I don't want the state OR any private entity involved in central planning of any kind where currency is concerned. That insidious capacity and ability by anyone is the only thing that needs to be abolished. And it's not really a case of abolishment, but rather a REPEAL of all the abolishments-in-effect (taxation, prohibitions and other economic barriers to entry) for COMPETING currencies.
And if there is central control of "A" currency, let it be in its own sandbox, in open competition with other currencies, with ZERO artificial advantages given to any of them, and ZERO artificial barriers to entry for any of them. That is not the case now - which is why you can, with a straight face even, disingenuously suggest that someone can already "buy" (and pay taxes on) other media of exchange -- or "move" to another state. You can move to Utah, the only state that follows the US Constitution (to the degree that it does) as it recognizes gold and silver coin as "legal tender". But that's the state, and has nothing to do with federal government's Barrier To Entry laws and policies with regard even to US minted gold and silver coin, which are treated NOT AS MONEY (even though they are counted as legal tender), but as "commodities" only, and subject to taxation and valuation relative to the privately controlled fiat currency - which is the only medium of exchange the federal government will accept or recognize as payment.
"Democratized" money, my ass.
EDIT: The only reason we even have currency (in any form) as a "medium of exchange" is due to convenience to the market, as currency is orders of magnitude more efficient than barter. If there is only ONE medium of exchange, however, that presents a ONE-TO-MANY relationship between currency and the goods and services they are exchanged for. That "single medium" makes the entire market, and all values of all goods and services in the market, vulnerable to manipulation and wholesale value distortion, to the degree that the medium of exchange can be controlled - by ANYONE, public or private.
The only way to eliminate concentrated manipulations and distortions is for multiple COMPETING media of exchange to exist - each with their own separate market values, in a MANY-TO-MANY relationship (many currencies to many goods and services). The more variety and options available, the more immune ALL currency on the whole to concentrated control and abuses, and the less likely it is that the highly varied supply of media in "CIRCULATION" can EVER DISAPPEAR OR DRY UP THROUGH DEFLATION. In other words, you don't force everyone's eggs into a "TOO EASY TO MANIPULATE, TOO DEPENDENT ON TO FAIL" aggregate basket, and you don't PUNISH substitutions on the currency side.
Multiple competing currencies is the ONLY way that abuse of ANY CURRENCY (hard specie, notes, bitcoins, and anything else used as "money") can be naturally self-correcting, as individuals in the market serve as the ultimate NATURAL checks and balances on all of them. Thus, to anyone who favors of a single currency only (regardless of its form or so-called "backing") - don't chop their hands off. Not right away, at least. Reason with them.