You equate gold standard with the use of gold coins in commerce. However, all that a gold standard requires is that paper money, coins, etc. be redeemable in gold at a standard weight per unit of currency by the issuer. I would, personally, add the requirement that the issuer of the paper and coins maintain 100% of the gold needed to redeem all outstanding paper and coins. Either way, however, the system is better than the current fiat system wherein the government grants the Fed and the rest of the banking cartel a monopoly on the right to issue and distribute money while the rest of us are required to honor it through legal (a.k.a. forced) tender laws. This system does not comport with democracy or free enterprise. It imposes an elite structure by force and because the money-creating privilege is always and has always been abused, the government grants still further special privilege to the monetary elite.
Because you are so adverse to gold, I went on to say that fiat systems are also possible that do not establish an elitist structure. I go on to describe one that benefits virtually all but a tiny monetary elite. Your only comment, so far, is that it is interesting that some guy who is on the other side of the political spectrum from most FRs suggested the same concept in a book. I am not surprised. People of all political stripes should, theoretically, favor honest money over the current system. Are you saying that since people you don't like agree with me nothing further has to be said about the merits of my suggested reform?