Kip:

I'm not sure you're being inconsistent, but I don't quite see where you're coming from. Is this based on the Keynesian idea that prices and wages are sticky in the downward direction, and that we need a slightly inflationary monetary policy to keep wages from falling and unions from rioting?

Also, I've said in the past that fiat currency is preferable to the gold standard in every way but one: that it places the money supply at the discretion of politicians. The question isn't whether the gold standard is optimal; it's whether politicians can be trusted to do better.

For Discussion: I have, on the other hand, essentially argued the exact opposite regarding the world supply of gold, insisting that it would be impossible to tie, as some more radical libertarians would like, the entire global economy to the extremely limited stock of gold that is available. Am I being inconsistent? Why or why not?

I don't think you are being inconsistent.

The money supply needs to be finite, in that conterfeiting must be impossible. That being said, in order to keep inflation down to a reasonable level, (and therefore have usable money), the supply of money has to expand at roughly the same rate as the economy. That is impossible for anything other than a purely symbolic resource.

Economics does not apply to the currency itself.