Assume an anarchist economy has developed. States are non-existent. What happens when gold becomes concentrated unevenly in the hands of a few moguls, while the rest of us are hung out to dry?
implying gold is the only good that can be used in exchange.
Are you suggesting we use granite as an medium for exchange? Why not cattle, per Keynes’ explanation on the origins of fiat currency?
Another commidty will become a means of currency if something like gold becomes too scarce. Prior to gold, people in ancient societies would use things like seashells and seeds as a means to pay for goods. Gold only has value because we give it value, likewise if it became scarce we would come to value another commidity as a means of currency.
… money is a common medium of exchange. If gold became “bad” money, another could easily take its place. Silver. Voluntary fiat money…
I am not economist, but I believe we can use anything we both value. Gems for example. There are also quite interesting virtual currency (bit coin). Fiat currency is also an option, if it is not forced, like there is with a State, though I can be wrong here.. That’s just my quick opinion.
Voluntary fiat money…
Yep, I am not the only one 
So why move to a gold currency if we could just eliminate the central banks’ manipulation of fiat currencies?
For that to happen, the “few moguls” would have to not spend the vast majority of their gold hoards. At that point, since the amount of gold in circulation has decreased, the relative purchasing power of that gold would increase.
Later on, as the moguls decide to spend more and more of their gold, the amount of gold in circulation would necessarily increase, leading to a corresponding decrease in its relative purchasing power.
Sounds like a recipe for theft, perpetrated by those less-enlightened amongst Anarchist society.
How is it theft? No one’s property has been taken without their consent. But no one is entitled to a particular monetary price for anything.
Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, there’s always the potential for people to start using something else as money, either alongside gold or instead of gold.
I mean the likelihood that someone feels desperate, and begins embezzling from a Mogul.
How would this happen without the state to “redistribute”?
So why move to a gold currency if we could just eliminate the central banks’ manipulation of fiat currencies?
Many of us here(myself included) would like to do just that. I personally couldnt care less if people use gold, silver, gems, smokes, or nuka-cola bottle caps as currency. I want to see a system where money is selected by the market through people’s voluntary exchange. In such a case, gold and silver will probably become the dominant forms of currency, as they have in most places throughout history, but there might be multiple competing forms of currency floating around. And if gold becomes too scarce, people will begin using silver, or bottle caps…
Although I think moving to some sort of gold standard would be a good first step towards a true market based money system.
Moguls rightfully earn and operate the means of production via consumer democracy. No state involvement, people choose to let the Mogul be an oligopolist.
Ohhh okay. I thought you were talking about the likelihood of said moguls trying to “game” the market(s) by hoarding gold to increase its purchasing power (i.e. lower prices) and then suddenly spending a whole bunch of the hoarded gold on stuff once they felt prices were low enough.
As far as I know, there’s no way to prevent embezzlement, so what’s your point?
Nula cola 
Gold is scarce.
Is there a correlation between a stable currency and scarcity, whether it is scarcity introduced by monetarism or a natural event?
Gold is pretty divisible. Gold certificates are infinitely divisible.