and they do not get retail prices, they get wholesale prices

That depends on where you're located. In some places you only get wholesale, in others you get paid retail, and in some you can even get more than retail (TVA pays retail + $0.04/kWh for solar for the first 10 years after a system is installed: http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=TN02F).

In addition, how you get paid also varies. Some places only allow you to offset your usage with what you generate for that current billing cycle. Other let you build up credits that can be used to offset your usage for a greater period of time, and others will actually pay you for your excess power.

I happen to live in an area that pays retail and lets you save credits for 12 months to offset your usage.

Hitler shot himself. Using the phrase "just like Hitler" implies that he thinks Obama should commit suicide. While it may be argued that's in poor taste, it's not a threat.

From the exact same article you linked to, just four paragraphs down:

"Ron Paul believes that the first step towards monetary freedom is to allow open competition in currencies. Once gold and silver are allowed as legal tender and can be sold without sales tax, everyone can use them to store their wealth and to pay for the things they want to buy. The Federal Reserve will finally have a very compelling motivation to stay honest and maintain the value of the dollar because if they don’t, they will simply lose all their customers.

Ron Paul has been an advocate of the gold standard and open competition in currencies for many years."

So it lost most of that as, get this, a non-fiat currency. So, why all the whining about "fiat."

Actually, it lost most of its value since 1971, as a fiat currency.

Looking at http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, we find the following:

From 1913 to 1971, inflation was 309.1% over those 58 years.
From 1971 to 2010, inflation was 437.4% over those 39 years.

Total inflation from 1913 to 2010 is 2098.3%.

You're correct in that anarchy is undemocratic, but for the wrong reason. If the strong rule the weak, you no longer have anarchy, since anarchy is by definition "the absence of government or authority" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy). The strong ruling the weak could more correctly be considered a form of meritocracy, which is "a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy).

Unfortunately, it's true that anarchy can easily be replaced by some other form of government, including a "strong ruling the weak" type meritocracy.

However, you're wrong in claiming that open source is democratic, since a key part of democracy is "rule of the majority" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy). Democracy places authority in the will of the people, and the minority must submit to the majority. In open source, there is no authority, and people are free to do with their tree as they wish, without the majority having any control over them.

Open source is anarchy, and pretty much even manages to achieve it in the utopian sense. There's no motive for violence, coercion, or theft in open source because we're dealing with a product that lacks scarcity.

"But it is only with open source that you can even copy someone else's code and do it your own way. No one can stop you from doing it your way, nor can you stop anyone else from doing it theirs. Hence, not anarchy, or even close."

Actually, that is exactly anarchy.

Wikipedia may make for interesting and informative reading, but I wouldn't rely on it for accurate definitions. And you even managed to quote part of the article that's marked as "dubious". Nice.

How about going to a dictionary for a definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The key point in the primary definition of democracy is "rule of the majority". There is no rule of the majority in open source, anyone can use whichever tree they choose or develop their own. If it was a democracy, users could only choose to use trees that had been approved by the majority.

Now, let's look at anarchy:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order :

Is there a government in open source? No. Do users enjoy complete freedom without government in open source, being able to use whichever tree they want or develop their own if no existing ones meet their needs? Yes. Is there an authority in open source that must be obeyed? No. Seems like anarchy to me.

Actually, Libertarian types are quite fond of the 9th Amendment. However, you're getting the completely wrong meaning out of it, twisting it to mean the opposite of what was intended.

The government doesn't grant rights, and the federal government doesn't have the power to do anything that isn't spelled out in the Constitution.