Respectfully, you're wrong. Every monetary unit that has ever existed has been backed by the same exact thing - and it's not gold. It's labor.
A biblical economy had currency issued (sometimes consisting of gold and silver) that was based on the completion of labor. You worked, and you got paid - where the currency you were paid was backed by the labor you just completed. Not all labor was equal - that's Socialism. But is was completed labor. This works great, since there is only so much labor that a society can complete in any given time period. Also, the work product tends to add to the overall economy so that it grows. The amount of currency may grow over time, but prices remain fairly stable, since the amount of goods and services grows along with it. Another interesting thing is that "money" and "currency" are synonymous in a "complete labor" economy.
A debt-based economy is centered around "money" being promissory notes. There is a disconnect with currency, since it is backed by those same debt instruments. "Currency" in a debt-based economy is backed by a claim on the promise of someone's future labor. "Currency" is a claim on "money" - but it is not "money".
What would happen if all debt in our nation either defaulted, or was paid off? Currency would cease to exist - since there would be no more claims on future labor. Do you now see why both Demon-rats and Republicans will always seek new debt? They have to in a debt-based economy - or the nation will face a far Greater Depression.
What is the solution? Is it to have currency backed by gold and silver? No. It's to have currency backed by the completion of labor instead of claims on the promise of future labor. I have no problem minting currency out of gold or silver - buts that's completely removed from the real issue.
Start focusing on what truly backs all currency throughout history - labor. It's just a matter of whether the currency is one of a free people - or one of slaves.
We are all implicit monetary slaves in this country - even if we are supposedly "debt free". The government has imputed claims on our future labor - and the labor of untold generations that will follow us.
Until I can do the same with these securities; to claim that my dollars [either of the "money" kind or the "currency" kind] are "backed" by them is untrue.
Again, I go back to my previous points. People are so fixated on precious metals that the miss the real point. England had a currency system called "tally sticks" that worked beautifully for over 600 years! These notched sticks of wood were not gold or silver - but they did represent labor that had been completed. They were not based on debt. Tally sticks were used by an economically free people. King William and Queen Mary (mainly William - who used Mary's claim to the throne) started debt-based money in the 1590's. Over time, England sought to force the same concept upon the American colonists. Our forefathers understood the danger. We no longer do.
I cannot agree with that. To say that something is backed by something else, it must be redeemable on the spot for that something else.
Money is only valued for the goods that it can buy. It is a commodity differing only from other commodities in that it is not consumed but merely transferred. Future labor is immaterial. The labor theory of value was disproved over a century ago.
I fear you have become enamored of the New Monetarists [and their theories are seductive] and will go down a blind avenue. I encourage you to take a look at the Austrians. They have the only rational and logical theory of money that I've read. Cheers.