I have read them all!
I prefer Hayek, he is less pedantic in his writing style then the others. I used to be a gold bug or “hard money man”, though I am now less convinced that it would work in a modern economy. That is why I lean toward the Friedman viewpoint. To me everything else ultimately is a form of barter, which because of its impracticality it fails then economic activity goes to ‘letters of credit (and debit)” and back to bank notes. The question is a unified currency issued by a central authority (bank) or a decentralized currency. History seems to show that a unified currency is more efficient economically, that is, is best for passing “value” between buyer & seller. The question is how do we keep the government out of it? Governments have been mucking up the value of money probably since there was money to muck with & governments to do it! Think Diocletian's devaluing of the Roman imperial currency!
If you went to a non-central bank solution what would you do with the current Federal Reserve notes? Zero them out?
I am not sure I want to change the current system until I am convinced this “cure” is not worse then the “sickness”. If one gets anything out of reading history and in particular economic history is healthy respect for the “Law of Unintended Consequences”.
I am in favor of freedom. I would let people use whatever they want as currency. If that happens to be gold, then so be it. If not, so be it. I am not in favor of forcing anyone to use any particular fiat currency.
A unified currency that comes about through market forces is one thing. A fiat currency that comes about through the force of government is something totally different and is always adulturated to the detriment of the people and to the benefit of the government and their bankster friends printing the notes.
I agree with you in that the government must be gotten out of the picture.
As for the fate of the FRNs, I’d say take it out on Bernanke, Greenspan, and the other central bankers.
Do to them what is done to other frauds.