Allocating capital profitably is extremely beneficial to humanity.

The thing is, your words make no sense. They are specious.

I think you dont understand what I wrote.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either government employees are magically more noble than the rest of humanity, or they are just as imperfect.

There is nothing magical about government.

Indeed, the only characteristic that sets a governmental organization apart from a non-governmental organization is that the governmental organization appropriates other people's resources against their will under threat of violence for noncompliance.

That is, yes, as you say, "such things seem to inevitably become some form of government", but that's because they start taking people's resources rather than convincing them to hand over those resources willingly; in short, you're saying that at worst, we could end up with government.

Murder and driving too fast are the forcible appropriation of someone else's capital.

The consent of the majority is still tyranny to the minority.

Rape, murder, and coercion are the forcible appropriation of someone else's capital.

Protection and enforcement of capital rights are not inherently governmental.

Justice certainly isn't inherently governmental; in fact, many would argue that governmental organization is inherently unjust.

Indeed, free software projects aren't even run as democratic organizations; rather, they are emergent hierarchies formed via the spontaneous participation of individuals.

Each person involved in free software chooses how to appropriate his own resources—that is, how to appropriate his own capital, including time, intellect, money, etc. Democracy, on the other hand, is about choosing how to appropriate someone else's resources, especially against that someone else's will, especially by threat of violence as punishment for noncompliance.

Democracy is no friend of freedom, and certainly no friend of free software.

I've already covered this.

As an aside, you should have already abstracted away the details of that type-specifier via at least a typedef. In other words, your argument is a straw man.

See here.

That's precisely the point, now isn't it...

You are begging the question; you are assuming the contract; you are programming by [implicit] convention—that which plagues dynamic typing.

That is to say, such informal programming tends to be practical in these cases, but don't confuse that practicality with correctness.

That's begging the question; that's assuming the contract; that's the "programming by [implicit] convention" that plagues dynamic typing.

That is to say, such informal programming tends to be practical in these cases, but don't confuse that practicality with correctness.

There's no "again" about it.

You're not repeating it; rather, you're specifying it.

Specifying the type is establishing a contract for the following code. This can be very worthwhile.

Of course, you could have achieved the same by declaring the variable inside the for-loop; keep things looking simple via a local typedef outside the for-loop:

typedef std::vector::const_iterator CIT;
for (CIT cit = MemVec.cbegin(); cit != v.end(); ++cit) {
        if (LookForPatterm(*cit))
                return true;
}
return false;

Adam Smith called such an intelligence the "Invisible Hand".

From the article: