My point is that with paper money, the government's actions may be foolish, but at least they're purposeful. With gold money, a mere inventor can destroy the world money supply.
The fact that I referred to publishing money should have clued anyone but a drooling idiot to the fact that I was aware of your argument and was adding to it. And if you misuse terms ("counterfeit"), the fault is entirely yours if someone misunderstands what you mean by them.
By definition, money is an abstracted value; the value of gold is not its economic utility, but what it's an abstraction of. I certainly understand Paul's motives in blocking the fed from being arbitrary, not merely abstracted. But the problem with tying an abstract value to a tangible asset is that the tangible asset is not necessarily constant. Gold is not feasible as an abstraction for goods and services, since one may acquire gold without being able to acquire the goods and services it represents. The oceans represent a reserve of gold millions of times more vast than the gold we can collect, and the technology is near (if not as near as we thought in the 1970s) to when that gold can be acquired without acquiring actual wealth.
If Paul desires we return to the gold standard, he must also devise a means by which we can detach from that standard in the event of a drastic shift in the value of gold.