You are correct that the Fed’s balance sheet held pretty steady from late 2008 on at just over two trillion dollars, though its quality deteriorated substantially (MBS up, Treasuries down). And you are certainly correct that inflation has not increased commensurate with Fed balance sheet growth at all, because, in part, contracting credit has offset the balance sheet expansion. But the Fed has been whittling away at the money value now for 100 years, and long run inflation seems inevitable. I believe it will be sooner and faster, but credible cases can be made for deflation, at least in the near term.
As to those who prefer the freedom they currently have, if that freedom is gained at the expense of others, it is not “freedom” in any defensible sense. With specific reference to your freedom to pay with paper, if you have entered into a contract that does not specify the medium of payment, so be it. But if you have entered into a contract that requires payment in gold, your “freedom to pay in paper” is freedom to steal. At any time when someone is trying to enforce the obligation to pay in gold, it is because the paper has depreciated.
North Korea is an extreme example, but consider Argentina. A hundred years ago it was the equal of the United States in many respects, and many considered its potential as great. But those who preferred the “freedom” to live at the expense of others came to power sooner. And now we see the Obama Treasury beginning to sniff around retirement accounts just like Argentina: we will protect the people by forcing them (or would you say “giving them the freedom to”?) buy our government debt rather than what they might wish to hold in retirement accounts.
Sort of like a person who demands the government force his countrymen to use gold/silver in their daily transactions. Whether it's a metal or paper, the government is still using force. Why is the force of gold/silver "freedom"?
But if you have entered into a contract that requires payment in gold, your “freedom to pay in paper” is freedom to steal.
As far as I know, gold clauses have been re-legalized. So, who is doing this? Has anybody entered into a contract since the 70s that had a gold clause and refused to honor it?
And now we see the Obama Treasury beginning to sniff around retirement accounts.
Again with the hyperbole. Obama couldn't get his healthcare plan passed by a Democrat controlled Congress, but somehow he is going to "steal our 401k's". If only we funded our 401k's with gold, they would be safe from Obama.