>in the US, until it was derailed by socialists I don't suppose I could convince you to point to a link/paper/whatever that describes exactly what you mean her

>in the US, until it was derailed by socialists I don't suppose I could convince you to point to a link/paper/whatever that describes exactly what you mean here? Because, no offense, but so far this sounds like Rush Limbaugh-style labeling. I'd also like to see an example, if you have one of Libertarianism working anywhere at a reasonable scale. Having no safety net (assuming Libertarianism implies that) means some peoples' very survival falls to the charity of others. Personally I think the US already had its Libertarian utopia and the current state is the result. Innovation is terribly difficult and expensive and will simply be ripped off if it even works, so Game theory tells me that any big company will be doing what ever they can to avoid it. A simple choice is investing money in growing the government to erect barriers to entry in your market. >As for gold, I suggest you study the history of money, and economics while you're at it, and pay particularly close attention to the predictions and results of those "libertarian economists", the austrians. Well, to me the issue is "currency shared across multiple autonomous economic systems" vs each system having its own currency. Gold is just another entity that has an expectations-based value like fiat currency is. Tying ones currency to it seems to me little different than tying one currency to another currency (e.g. China -> USD). This is why I've, so far, written off the argument of going back to a gold standard. What if you need to depress your currency for international competitive reasons?