Not if there's no imminent hyperinflation. This system has lasted for 37 years. Many people during the 70's, including Ron Paul, thought we would have hyperinflation. 20 years later and the dollar is still the world reserve currency. How do you know this can't last for another 5, 10, or even 20 years?
Hyperinflation or not, FRNs do not represent substance.
" Because gold and silver have, from the beginning of time, been very highly prized as a medium of exchange, our founding fathers knew it was the only medium that could maintain and assure the “Payment of debts” in all trade or commerce /10 under the constitution. Thus, our Constitution states under Article I Section 10, “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” So, if one was to use gold or silver coin as a medium of exchange, then one could use the gold or silver coin to trade for the salt in the example above.
This barter/trade was based on a verbal meeting of the minds (agreement) between the person that had the salt for barter (sale) and the person who had gold/silver, or some other item of value, to trade or exchange for salt. When the exchange of equal value for value took place the agreement (contract) was paid (fulfilled, complete). That is, the contract was made and paid (fulfilled) at the same moment between two parties. There was no debt after the barter (sale / contract) was completed between two parties. There was nothing left owing by either party after the transaction. Substance had been bartered for equal substance -- value for value. There was no third party intervener /11 as there is today. This is because there was no way for the federal government to have jurisdiction over a primary state citizen unless that citizen was to enter into a bilateral contract with the federal government. And even then, there was literal 10th Amendment /12 protection for the citizen in the bilateral contract, because public policy, dictated by the substance of the common law, was still demanding the payment of debt. Then, the governmental power could come under Article I in rem and not the public policy of diversity /13 operating quasi in rem that we see today under HJR 192, 12 U.S.C. Section 95a, 15 U.S.C. Chapter 41 Section 1602 and Article IV Section 3 Clause 2.
At the founding of the Constitution, all disputes between persons in commerce usually had to do with unfulfilled or unpaid agreements or contracts, therefore the law of contracts in the Constitution was founded on the common law necessity of all contracts being fulfilled or paid when made. Without a medium of exchange containing a predictable and measured substance, no agreement or contract could be properly or completely paid. If unpaid, the law of contracts was unfulfilled, incomplete or lacking, because there was no contract without payment. The substance (gold or silver coin) of the common law, that dictated that all contracts must be paid in order to exist was not exchanged, therefore, a contract did not exist. Contracts are considered to exist only when they are paid. /14 It was because of these vital principles that contracts can only be made/paid via a medium of exchange that contains the “Standard” substance (or law substance), that our founding fathers wrote Article 1 Section 10 to guarantee a consistent, unchanging weight and fineness to our “gold and silver coin” money as well as the law that follows it.
Have you ever heard the expression, “the law of the land?” /15 This expression was first used in the Magna Charta and meant the common law of England, in opposition to the civil or Roman law. And according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules which govern society.” In America, the basis of all law that governs our society is our national Constitution with its common law principles -- at least that was what our founding fathers intended.
But what has changed since then? Well, the substance of “the law of the land” has been removed. Yes, on June 5, 1933 Congress enacted House Joint Resolution 192 that removed the hard mineral substance known as "gold," also referred to as “portable land,” from giving consistent, predictable and exact value to our money. "Silver" was demonetized as “payment” of debt in 1862 when Congress changed the silver standard from one dollar in silver to the silver dollar. Since then, silver is considered a commodity and was finally withdrawn from circulation in 1964. Silver Certificates were withdrawn in 1972.
The hard precious metal substances known as gold and silver, used in coins, comes from the earth. It is literally portable or movable substance from or of the land (law). Land and law go hand in hand, because in times past only those that owned the land had access to the portable law substance (gold and silver) that was found in the land. Likewise, those that owned or controlled the land made, produced or brought forth the law “Standard” of gold and silver.
Despite HJR 192, Congress cannot override the state governments incorporated powers under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. Despite current public policy, Congress cannot override an American’s right to maintain a private policy under the common law principles as they are expressed in the first ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. However, because the gold is the “Standard” substance of the law, and law follows the “Standard” substance of money, when Congress, acting under public policy, suspended the “Standard” gold substance in “Payment” of debt, a shift away from the common law transpired by what is called “operation of law.” /16 The shift occurred because everyone was given a quasi-corporate privilege under HJR 192 of NOT paying their debts even though it is demanded under the common law of each state in the Union according to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution."
http://usa-the-republic.com/Lee Brobst/The Law.html
couldn't resist 
