Stability of Anarchy: Let's Continue Here, Smurf

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vanesch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stability
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
275 replies · 26K views
loseyourname said:
I've never been to Cuba, but you're making it sound like a pretty nice place. I wonder why so many people defect or smuggle themselves out and why the Cuban population of the US hates Castro so much.

Edit: I'm not being a dick either. I am honestly curious about why this happens. I genuinely don't know jack about Cuba outside of what little I learned from watching The Godfather II.
I don't mean to say Cuba's perfect, but it is impressive. Want to start a new thread?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Smurf said:
I don't mean to say Cuba's perfect, but it is impressive. Want to start a new thread?

Not really. If I get curious enough, I'll just look into it myself. I generally only start a thread if I feel I already know enough to engage in discussion.
 
Well you can start by googling anything by Nelson Valdes. He's a professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico.
 
loseyourname said:
Where did you get the information that 1 in 6 American children sleep on the streets?

an online article. i really don't remember where, and google isn't helping. but the other side of it was that 200 million kids on cuba don't sleep on the street, zero poverty.

Cuba is not that bad at all, its all a big media war. Soldiers there arent aloud to shoot civilians, nor are police, for any reason until they stand trial. Compulsary military service for all, which means the population will fight off any agressor en masse; which to me is better than letting the military pollice a bunch of sheople. most people un the usa don't even know how to shoot a gun
 
lol. We already live in Anarchy. :smile:
 
Smurf said:
A person will inherent a large sum of money from their parents. Another person will not. This is not equal opportunity, the person with a larger sum of money will get a better education, have more money to invest with, and be able to start up his own business more easily than the person with less. If the government does not give you the opportunity, you will be prevented from having it by another market force. Any change to this system will restrict private property rights and/or free market economics and is thus non-capitalist.

This is indeed the main flaw in a capitalist doctrine, one of the reasons I think it is always needed to correct for it. But it is an ethernal dilemma: on one hand, one could say that it is extremely natural for parents to want "the best for their kids" and hence try to give them an edge over the others (this is Darwinistic :-); on the other hand there's this human-invented notion of fairness and equality.
I think the good part in capitalism is the motivational factor and the "reward for the one who succeeds" ; the bad part is indeed the accumulation of wealth in families to obscene levels. So the trick must be to find some means to keep some of the former, while avoiding too much negative effects of the latter (hence my proposal to put an upper limit on property, high enough to keep the motivation going for most, and low enough to prevent excessive accumulation ; but it is just a crude idea).
 
Inheritance is not the only problem with a capitalistic market. Inequalities are presented and grown every where. It's the competitive nature of the free market. A person will be born with a higher intelligence, or better looks, or will just get lucky and, say, win the lottery. They now have an inherent and unfair advantage in the free market. They will use that intelligence to get better grades in school. They will use their better charisma to get hired for better jobs. They will use their lottery to buy favorable real estate and start their own business. The competitive nature of the free market, the basis for it is in gaining advantages, and exploiting those advantages, for gain. Therefore, someone has to lose. Someone has to become unequal.

There are some social-capitalist fools (think most democratic socialist parties) who think we have some more responsibility to provide basic needs for people. Thus we end up providing healthcare, food, shelter, and such for people if they can't support themselves. It's pretty obvious these people do not contribute to society. Why is this? Is it because they were born lazy and simply exploit the system? Hardly, it's because the system is pushing them down. If a person can not provide their own food and shelter, how are they going to compete in this intensly competitive economy? They can't. They don't have the education or the experience or the will usually because they know how difficult it is, and they're happier living simple lives. Especially when everything is provided for them. This is why open source software development has become so popular lately. People don't gain from it. They like to do it. They like to feel they've contributed, and they like the recognition it brings them too. And all this in a virtually competition-free industry.

This ends up creating a deficite and the wealthy populace is hauling all the costs of the unwealthy. They get pissed off because they think they deserve all their money because they actually succeeded in this market (nevermind the fact that most of them went to university on their daddy's money - they must've succeeded because they worked harder). So they end up electing a mini-fascist who ends cancelling all these programs. In short more and more people are forced to get jobs or live on the street. Because of the influx of people needing jobs, but the job market isn't expanding at the same rate, and they're all too poor to start their own business - Most of them end up in the latter category.

This is the flaw of social capitalism. And any political rightist will tell you the same thing, except he'll blame it on "human laziness" and tell you that anyone who wants to can get a job. He'll also tell you, but only if you ask him, that he's from a middle class familly and had a relatively easy time getting food and shelter for most of his life. Chances are he doesn't know how hard it is to get a grip on life when the rest of your life revolves around being there when the soup kitchen opens and when the sally anne has give-aways. Nor has he ever likely had too much trouble getting a job.

It's not the social part that's the problem, it's the capitalist part. The social part just shifts the burden from the poor to the rich, as opposed to an actual re-distribution of wealth.
 
Last edited:
Smurf said:
A person will be born with a higher intelligence, or better looks, or will just get lucky and, say, win the lottery. They now have an inherent and unfair advantage in the free market. They will use that intelligence to get better grades in school. They will use their better charisma to get hired for better jobs. They will use their lottery to buy favorable real estate and start their own business. The competitive nature of the free market, the basis for it is in gaining advantages, and exploiting those advantages, for gain. Therefore, someone has to lose. Someone has to become unequal.

I'd say that that is one of the better parts of capitalism ! That you are not doomed to be equal to your neighbour for the rest of your days...
The aim is not to become, or to be, equal, the aim is to be happy!

There are some social-capitalist fools (think most democratic socialist parties) who think we have some more responsibility to provide basic needs for people. Thus we end up providing healthcare, food, shelter, and such for people if they can't support themselves. It's pretty obvious these people do not contribute to society. Why is this? Is it because they were born lazy and simply exploit the system? Hardly, it's because the system is pushing them down. If a person can not provide their own food and shelter, how are they going to compete in this intensly competitive economy? They can't.

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing ? Then they simply do not take part in our society. I think that given the living standard of Western societies, we should provide them with a satisfaction of their elementary needs, because this will increase their happiness much for a reasonable price, without expecting any return from them. If they cannot compete, they "do not serve any purpose" but because they are human beings, we should have a minimum of care for them ; we should also limit damage to the next generation (lots of options here, from sterilisation to taking care of their kids). However, I don't think society should reorganize itself just to give them the feeling to be "on par" with the others. They simply have bad luck, just as being born with a genetic defect is "bad luck".

This ends up creating a deficite and the wealthy populace is hauling all the costs of the unwealthy. They get pissed off because they think they deserve all their money because they actually succeeded in this market (nevermind the fact that most of them went to university on their daddy's money - they must've succeeded because they worked harder). So they end up electing a mini-fascist who ends cancelling all these programs.

Well, you still have to convince a MAJORITY of people to elect a fascist, so you cannot have a "minority of rich" dominate a "majority of poor" and then have that minority elect a fascist helping them to get rid of the redistribition of wealth. The poor also vote (and in fact the funny thing is that it is a rather poor electorate which often votes for fascistoide leaders). The biggest problem is that people vote, not realizing they are voting against their own interests, or even against their own visions (hence, my other proposal: have a weighting coefficient attached to each vote, given by the answers to technically objective questions concerning the voting issue, such as the programme of each candidate).
 
Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing ? Then they simply do not take part in our society. I think that given the living standard of Western societies, we should provide them with a satisfaction of their elementary needs, because this will increase their happiness much for a reasonable price, without expecting any return from them. If they cannot compete, they "do not serve any purpose" but because they are human beings, we should have a minimum of care for them ; we should also limit damage to the next generation (lots of options here, from sterilisation to taking care of their kids). However, I don't think society should reorganize itself just to give them the feeling to be "on par" with the others. They simply have bad luck, just as being born with a genetic defect is "bad luck".
These people are effectively being taken out of the productive society. If you have that big of a population being supported and not producing anything in turn all their ability, all their talent is lost. Those people could contribute a lot as labour, as leadership, or any other skills. But we don't let them, and so their potential for the community is lost.

Alternatively (#1) one could also see this as preventing people from real happiness, as it is preventing them from achieving any level of self-actualization which would come as a result of having a fully productive life.

Alternatively (#2) one has to consider where those resources that are now being spent on a persons support are coming from. We in the west take our vast resources for granted. It would be far more beneficial to the community and/or humanity if those resources were put into other institutions. Research, recycling, clean energy sources, or sent abroad as aid.

Also, many would consider your "solutions", such as sterilization, to be highly immoral. A person's rights should not vary by how productive they are.

Now more on Capitalism in general:
 
vanesch said:
I'd say that that is one of the better parts of capitalism ! That you are not doomed to be equal to your neighbour for the rest of your days...
The aim is not to become, or to be, equal, the aim is to be happy!
But equality is one of the most fundamental requirements for a happier society. A society with scarce (limited) resources can not function if one person is allowed to take from another, as that person will now fall farther into poverty as the other person rises above it. Capitalism requires a lower class to function. If there is not one, it will create one. If there is one, it will expand it and increase the class gap. This is the function of capitalism - it creates inequality and in doing so it creates poverty.

In a capitalist society if you do well one day, it increases your capacity to do well the next day. This "power leads to power" system inherently allows one class to move farther and farther away from another (and the competitive nature encourages them to do it), creating a class that is doomed to be equal to their neighbour for the rest of their days. Equally poor. It is only those that are capable already who can rise even higher - only they have "Freedom of opportunity" to move up and down.

This does not create a happy society. Equality is fundamental to happiness - this will not change as long as humanity does not possesses unlimited resources.

Take a look at this table - just as food for thought:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cubachart.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smurf said:
But equality is one of the most fundamental requirements for a happier society. A society with scarce (limited) resources can not function if one person is allowed to take from another, as that person will now fall farther into poverty as the other person rises above it. Capitalism requires a lower class to function. If there is not one, it will create one. If there is one, it will expand it and increase the class gap. This is the function of capitalism - it creates inequality and in doing so it creates poverty.

Sounds like heaven to me...

Better to have the wealthy, the middle class and poverty than to have everyone equally miserable living in poverty...except you won't call it poverty cause everyone will be equally pathetic...
 
Smurf said:
In a capitalist society if you do well one day, it increases your capacity to do well the next day. This "power leads to power" system inherently allows one class to move farther and farther away from another (and the competitive nature encourages them to do it), creating a class that is doomed to be equal to their neighbour for the rest of their days. Equally poor. It is only those that are capable already who can rise even higher - only they have "Freedom of opportunity" to move up and down.

How do you explain people who come from poverty to become rich? It happens all the time...

My grandfather was an orphan moving from house to house and had a terrible life. As a kid he spent more nights sleeping outside without any food than he ever did in a bed with a roof over his head. Now he owns Camlever Inc. in Pomona California...

O I suppose you can say he is the exception or some crap...but the reality is is that anyone can become rich in the US. Everyone has that opportunity. Whether they realize it is up to them and not the state.

Just imagine what life would be like if it depended on some bureaucrats' filing the right paper work...that would be hell...oh wait...that would be socialism
 
Last edited:
Townsend said:
How do you explain people who come from poverty to become rich? It happens all the time...
I don't see why I have to. I was speaking of capitalist trends and forces, not of individuals. Class movement only supports my thesis because it verifies the existence of classes to begin with. He is not an exception to the rule, he is the rule - or at least part of it.

The claim that anyone can become rich is, of course, true. It is, however, an individualist statement and; thus, incomplete in this context. A person becoming rich will take money from someone else - this is because his resources are limited and so he cannot merely create wealth out of thin air. So, A person can become rich (obviously proved by the existence of "rich" people today); however, the entire population of a [capitalist] nation cannot - not the only reason of which being that such would make them all equal and eliminate the definition of 'rich'.

Additionally, the farther down a person is the harder it is to move up. It is not uncommon for a middle class individual to move up a class. It is much less common for an impoverished individual to do the same. It is also obviously easy to move down a class, because it is [obviously] easier to lose wealth, than to gain it.

Townsend said:
Just imagine what life would be like if it depended on some bureaucrats' filing the right paper work...that would be hell...oh wait...that would be socialism
I think this statement rests on the assumption that a socialist state would operate exactly like a capitalist state - but with more social programs. This is the common view of socialism in the west. It is probably rooted in the many social-capitalist (social democratic) parties have advertised themselves as 'socialist' despite their vast differences from any resemblance of Marxism. I've written about it above.
 
Smurf said:
I think this statement rests on the assumption that a socialist state would operate exactly like a capitalist state - but with more social programs. This is the common view of socialism in the west. It is probably rooted in the many social-capitalist (social democratic) parties have advertised themselves as 'socialist' despite their vast differences from any resemblance of Marxism. I've written about it above.

I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.
 
Townsend said:
I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.
I'm sure you'll have no trouble proving it then.
 
Townsend said:
I don't think socialism is the opposite but non the less it is not an assumption that the average person living in a socialist economy will be worse off but an inescapable fact.
(my bolding)

How inescapable? What average? Average includes an awful lot of people, many of whom are not well-off at all in capitalism, as we saw from New Orleans. How is it inescapable that people like that could not be better off under some socialist government?
 
Smurf said:
A person becoming rich will take money from someone else - this is because his resources are limited and so he cannot merely create wealth out of thin air.

Wrong Smurf...wealth is created out of thin air...that is in fact the whole reason capitalism is works. If was not the case then there would be as much wealth today as there was before anyone ever lived. How did the first person become wealthy? I guess he had to get from somewhere so where?

One person becoming rich DOES NOT necessarily take away the wealth of ANY else. If I make a new super-duper-thing-a-ma-bob...mass produce and sell it then the people who buy it are exchanging their money for a product they want. They have lost no 'wealth' in doing so. I gain wealth...out of thin air!

However, in a socialist world I have ZERO desire to make that new super-duper-thing-a-ma-bob because it does me no good. So that wealth the could have been created is not created. And because of the multiplier effect the wealth I would have created would have made everyone in the economy wealthier.
 
selfAdjoint said:
(my bolding)

How inescapable? What average? Average includes an awful lot of people, many of whom are not well-off at all in capitalism, as we saw from New Orleans. How is it inescapable that people like that could not be better off under some socialist government?

Because everyone will be like that...not just a few. So they are just as bad as before only now they have more company with which to share their misery.
 
We already live in Anarchy. Maybe none of you caught my point. People are already ignorant. Cops are just a crazy cult of people who want to throw you in a cage. Their influence started to brainwash many people into believe such things as justice.

The government is just a huge mafia, no better than an L.A. street gang.
Once people start realizing that we already live in Anarchy, then they'll take action to destroy the bigger people with words and actions.

You can still maintain the being of a calm spirit, just don't pay taxes. Educate people to be educated instead of drug abusers. I'm thinking people don't understand any of this. The world is full of ignorant morons which to this day is why I want to kill every last fool on this planet.

Paper money is just that, paper. Metallic items in such a technological world provide much more value for scientific research and as usage as conductors for electronic devices. I'm assuming not a lot of people think about this. A $100 USD bill can be burned right in front of my fingers. It's paper.

Falling nations soon realized that when they burned their cash in their house just to fuel a fire.

These other government terms like socialist and everything else is just a word to have others think what you see is what it is. Just like how I see a darker shade of blue, you see a lighter shade.

Ugh.
Scientists should have more sense.
 
Bio-Hazard said:
We already live in Anarchy. Maybe none of you caught my point. People are already ignorant. Cops are just a crazy cult of people who want to throw you in a cage. Their influence started to brainwash many people into believe such things as justice.

The government is just a huge mafia, no better than an L.A. street gang.
Once people start realizing that we already live in Anarchy, then they'll take action to destroy the bigger people with words and actions.

You can still maintain the being of a calm spirit, just don't pay taxes. Educate people to be educated instead of drug abusers. I'm thinking people don't understand any of this. The world is full of ignorant morons which to this day is why I want to kill every last fool on this planet.

Paper money is just that, paper. Metallic items in such a technological world provide much more value for scientific research and as usage as conductors for electronic devices. I'm assuming not a lot of people think about this. A $100 USD bill can be burned right in front of my fingers. It's paper.

Falling nations soon realized that when they burned their cash in their house just to fuel a fire.

These other government terms like socialist and everything else is just a word to have others think what you see is what it is. Just like how I see a darker shade of blue, you see a lighter shade.

Ugh.
Scientists should have more sense.

i think you should start a thread on what ignorance is. Then i could point out the instances of misinformation and fascism in your post. And no, we do not live in anarchy; i would call it corporatism, fascism, theocracy, and maybe a few others but not anarchism-not in the least.





People do not need to be equal to be happy. Economically, however, people should be like, that's it. In all other instances of expression, people must be allowed to be individuals, and believe in what they want so long as it does not come into conflict with collective well-being. No matter what, if you don't let people be who they are, you have crossed a personal defense line and people will feel violated and unhappy, cross over some more and people will get violent and eventually militant.

Wealth is not created out of thin air. Wealth can be traced back to the earth, and its resources. If i make a popular device, i needed wealth to make it, and i need other peoples' money to capitalize. You would not have made this device without financing funds. you create wealth by capitalizing on something that is already there, and you get more wealth by taking it from other people when they buy your device.

Furthermore, wealth comes from regulating a commodity, which could be gold, or fresh water. You can then use the funds to reasearch technologies, then you can make your device. But out of thin air, not unless you have a counterfeiting machine.
 
Last edited:
Townsend said:
Because everyone will be like that...not just a few. So they are just as bad as before only now they have more company with which to share their misery.
And just how do you plan on proving that claim townsend? Surely the more socialist-oriented countries today could make very strong arguments against that. Cuba, for example. Not a single person in Cuba lives on the street. They have the highest ratios of doctors to patients in the world and one of the healthiest populations in the hemisphere. Cuban students in comparative national tests out-perform all other students from the hemisphere by 100 points over and above the regional average.

Moreover, this had been accomplished with the limited material resources the country possesses, the absence of long-term foreign aid or soft loans. The outcome is even more extraordinary if one considers the 42 year economic embargo that the United States government has imposed on the island, the disappearance of the Soviet bloc, and the fact that the accomplishments have been done by the Cubans without significant foreign assistance since 1992.
 
Townsend said:
One person becoming rich DOES NOT necessarily take away the wealth of ANY else. If I make a new super-duper-thing-a-ma-bob...mass produce and sell it then the people who buy it are exchanging their money for a product they want. They have lost no 'wealth' in doing so. I gain wealth...out of thin air!
Wealth is not created out of nothing. In your illustrated example your wealth was created out of nuts and bolts which you bought with your own money. Or maybe you didn't, maybe you sold your house and used the funds to start your business. Maybe you took out a loan on your car, or you were given the money from a rich relative. You still created it out of your existing wealth - and, most importantly, out of your labour.

Why has the amount of material possessions we have gone up throughout history? Collective labour has pulled resources from the Earth and turned them into other products. As Marx said, Labour is all the wealth the working class has. The wealthy already have material possessions from which they can turn into more wealth (hence: "Power leads to power"). The lower classes do not. So, they have to sell their labour. That is what wealth is created out of, not thin air. And labour has a price, and a demand and a supply - it is a commodity in a free market, and it is traded like one; Thus, most of it's value goes to the upper class, just like any other commodity, as illustrated above.
 
Smurf said:
snip...

Let's just cut right to the chase Smurf...

If I lived in a socialist country what would I be working for? Do I get a wage a salary or nothing but government supplied housing food and whatever else I might happen to absolutely need? Do I get a car? Is there only one kind of car that exist so that no one has any higher standard of living?

What color is my house or box or whatever the government gives me. What kind of hours do I have to work? What happens if I don't come into work?

I don't get it Smurf...how is everything done so that everyone has exactly the same social class? If there is any different social classes then you have fixed nothing...everyone must be exactly equal...you don't get to buy a new CD unless everyone gets to buy a new CD...make zero sense.

Explain my life to me Smurf...tell my why I should want to live in a socialist society instead of a capitalist society where I can make money and buy whatever I want...
 
i agree with bio hazzard "Money is just paper", Today we see entire nations with plenty of natural resources, oil, metals, water, fertile lands, and food with it's population submerged into poverty, starving and living in the most awfull conditions, just becouse they have no money! they have no painted papers..

I will say it again, my country exports food to feed 4 times it's own population, and 25% of it's is starving... (Becouse we have no money )
 
Burnsys said:
i agree with bio hazzard "Money is just paper", Today we see entire nations with plenty of natural resources, oil, metals, water, fertile lands, and food with it's population submerged into poverty, starving and living in the most awfull conditions, just becouse they have no money! they have no painted papers..

I will say it again, my country exports food to feed 4 times it's own population, and 25% of it's is starving... (Becouse we have no money )

Raw material is not wealth...fiat money is not wealth. Wealth is the power to buy what you want. It can come in almost any form... fiat money just lowers the transaction cost...
 
Smurf said:
But equality is one of the most fundamental requirements for a happier society.

How on Earth can you say that? If that were the case, then no one on the planet would be happy, since no one person is equal to all other people.
 
Smurf said:
Wealth is not created out of nothing. In your illustrated example your wealth was created out of nuts and bolts which you bought with your own money. Or maybe you didn't, maybe you sold your house and used the funds to start your business. Maybe you took out a loan on your car, or you were given the money from a rich relative. You still created it out of your existing wealth - and, most importantly, out of your labour.

Wealth can be created very easily, not out of nothing, but out of demand. Buy a stock someday and watch its price rise in the next fifteen minutes. Your net worth just increased and wealth was created by nothing more than the fact that people wanted that stock at that time. Not a single material good was produced. Wealth can be created because value is a completely subjective thing. House prices go up not because the houses are any better, but simply because people are willing to pay more for them. Appreciation has far outpaced inflation in most parts of the USA (especially the coastal regions), creating new wealth. Come on, smurf, it's extremely basic economics that wealth is not a zero-sum game.
 
Burnsys said:
i agree with bio hazzard "Money is just paper", Today we see entire nations with plenty of natural resources, oil, metals, water, fertile lands, and food with it's population submerged into poverty, starving and living in the most awfull conditions, just becouse they have no money! they have no painted papers..

In most cases, that is because the resources are either badly mismanaged or owned by interests either outside of the country or with no interest in distributing their wealth within the country.
 
Oh my where to begin... I'm not sure if I have the patince to go back through all of that and pick out quotes to comment on. Let's see...

Alex, the band-aid I referred to was revolution not socialism. Personally I don't see the two as being synonymous.
Your example of capitalism as theft is inaccurate I believe. What you sited was a something akin to corporatism, the state transfering wealth/resources to a preferred class of individuals to be managed. This has nothing to do with capitalism. The idea of the state redistirbuting (not evenly in this instance), wealth and property goes very much against capitalism. Capitalism strongly supports private property rights. By your same concepts Communism is theft. The state takes the property from those who have worked to secure it and gives it to other people just as in your example except to a larger group. Ofcourse we are talking about anarchy here and in anarchy property is theft so...

It seems to me that nearly all of the problems had with capitalism so far expressed in this thread truly spring from corporatist type activities. Capitalism does not support law makers adjusting laws to help out corporations. Note the etimology; corporation - corporatism. Laws allowing corporations to form with certain rights that give them an advantage over other businesses is corporatism, not capitalism. Corporations are also the types of businesses that are notorious for exploiting workers, resources, monopolies, loopholes in laws, ect all for the purpose of expanding profits which are again those things that the anti-capitalists in this thread are pointing to as problems with capitalism. As I already stated in my previous post regarding this capitalism does not necessitate corporatism, though one easily leads to the other. Not all capitalists support corporatism, nor do all capitalist societies support it.
Personally I still need to read up on the logic being corpratism before I decide if I condemn it fully or not but currently there are plenty of there are plenty of things about it I don't like.

Now let me see what else I wanted to respond to...
 
Last edited:
About Linux
Linux was started by individuals with the resources that they personally had available to them. They did not have to ask permission to work on their project or allocate reources to it, except that I think they may have been college students and may have needed to ask the college for certain things such as lab access I don't know for sure. One way or another they had no need to ask the state or community for permission and resources to allocate, at most they had to ask a professor or dean, and had their own resources (due to private property) to invest in the project. Once complete they were capable of maintaining ownership of their product so that they could determine what will be done with it regardless of the wishes of community or state. The state/community could not intervene and take ownership of their property and decide what will or will not be done with it from that point on. Their capacity to do what they did came from the fact that they had the right to private property granted to them by our capitalist system. Personally I have more faith in the charity and ingenuity of individuals than I do in a community or state. That is I don't think a similar project working by commitee of the state would have worked out nearly as well. Capitalism allows for individuals to do things such as the Linux project while lack of private property and enforcing accountability to a community for most if not all product and resource would hinder such an undertaking it would seem to me.