Firstly, I’m not sure what libertarianism has to do with an alleged incompatibility between the gold standard and cornucopianism. It is perfectly possible to be a cornucopian supporter of the gold standard without being a libertarian. You seem to have a hobby-horse of bringing libertarianism into questions where it is irrelevant. I have been unable to find survey data of libertarian views on the gold standard, but the monetary policy views I most closely associate with libertarianism are Monetarism and Free Banking.
Secondly, your alleged contradiction doesn’t seem to work, or at least, is insufficiently developed. Why would it be a problem for a hypothetical gold standard if in the future we have mountains of gold alongside our mountains of copper, wheat, etc? As long as improvements in gold output track the improvements in all other goods, that would imply a constant price level, and the gold standard is vindicated. The major drawback of the gold standard is precisely the opposite worry—that there might be changes in gold output not reflected in the output of other goods, resulting in unanticipated shocks to the price level. But this is equally true in cornucopian and Malthusian worlds, and defenders of the gold standard nevertheless think that this policy is the best available option. So I really don’t see how the addition of a cornucopian belief creates any added (dis)advantages for support for the gold standard.
Firstly, I’m not sure what libertarianism has to do with an alleged incompatibility between the gold standard and cornucopianism. It is perfectly possible to be a cornucopian supporter of the gold standard without being a libertarian. You seem to have a hobby-horse of bringing libertarianism into questions where it is irrelevant. I have been unable to find survey data of libertarian views on the gold standard, but the monetary policy views I most closely associate with libertarianism are Monetarism and Free Banking.
Secondly, your alleged contradiction doesn’t seem to work, or at least, is insufficiently developed. Why would it be a problem for a hypothetical gold standard if in the future we have mountains of gold alongside our mountains of copper, wheat, etc? As long as improvements in gold output track the improvements in all other goods, that would imply a constant price level, and the gold standard is vindicated. The major drawback of the gold standard is precisely the opposite worry—that there might be changes in gold output not reflected in the output of other goods, resulting in unanticipated shocks to the price level. But this is equally true in cornucopian and Malthusian worlds, and defenders of the gold standard nevertheless think that this policy is the best available option. So I really don’t see how the addition of a cornucopian belief creates any added (dis)advantages for support for the gold standard.