The closer you are to your audience, the less natural it is to ask for money.

In seemingly commodity exchange relationships were bonds have been connected, you will see two things: an existing element of the gift and closeness fluctuating based on how large that element is. The larger that is the closer the relationship.

One of Hyde’s claims is that gifts strengthen relationships. This is something I want to question. In the internet, there are lots of free stuff, but I do not create that bond among those who give them for free.

Perhaps it is useful to differentiate between classic gift communities and modern ones. A classic gift community is local and smaller.

I don’t think I am still a purely anarchocapitalist. Capitalism was a newer invention. We had more primitive ways of exchange. I am partial that we need both and perhaps a balancing regimes. But I do not know how to best do that without compromising individual freedom.

The transition of komun to titled lands is an illustration of the transition of gift economies to exchange economies. The komun moves towards the person with most need. Once commoditized, land ceases to be this way.

The gift nature of science explains well why academia can often times be tribal and exclusivist.