Thank you, I bookmarked both articles after reading!

Tucker's article was fascinating, and he made it quite clear why the advent of class-divided economic systems were inevitable once a small surplus of product was available for some, but otherwise remained scarce and production of said products difficult. And he also did a good job of explaining that the more advanced production becomes, and the greater the ease of replication of any given product becomes (with ideas and images conveyed via electronic mediums being the most prominent example in today's world), creates a potential abundance of said product that makes socialistic forms of ownership feasible (yes, prior to the Industrial Revolution, and in Third World countries today, Marxian socialism is not technologically feasible, regardless of what anyone living in such a time period or nation may feel about it from an ideological standpoint, which is why half-hearted attempts at creating such a system in technologically undeveloped countries in the early 20th century, and even later, resulted in state ownership, not social ownership). Tucker could have differentiated between private property and personal property, as Marxists do, but that is a whole other sub-topic that I, alas, do not have the time to get into a detailed discussion about.

I found the link to the Wiki article on what is called 3-D Printing to be thoroughly fascinating, because even though this technology is in its infancy at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, it has proven feasible already, and it looks very much like an early forbear of what was described as replicator technology in the fictional late 24th century era depicted in the three Star Trek series that took place in that time period (i.e., The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager, along with the TNG movies). For this reason, the advent of 3-D Printing will doubtlessly piss off the anti-futurists out there (one very outspoken example of whom, at least, is a regular at this board) who have a strong emotionally-driven insistence that any idea or technological innovation that first appears in a fictitious sci-fi text or movie/TV show, or even has an extrapolated version that appears in the genre after a prototype of its real world application proves feasible (e.g., nanotech), cannot possibly ever prove feasible in real life; they are forever fictional and that is that, and anyone who believes that any such "magical machinery" is in any way conceivable in reality is totally "missing the spirit" for which the sci-fi authors intended their fictional tech (which I guess is in the "spirit" of pure entertainment); and all the plentiful evidence that fictional ideas and tech that appear in the sci-fi genre inspire real life ideas and technical progress in many cases (even if the tech in question doesn't do what it does in exactly the same operational manner as described in the fiction) is outright ignored and scoffed at, because such individuals have this manic and heated urge to view fiction and reality as being completely mutually exclusive in all ways, and anyone who suggests that an idea expressed in sci-fi fiction could possibly be conceivable at some point in what becomes the actual future is engaging in "prophetic thinking," blah blah blah...my point being, fiction is inspirational on many levels, and is not only good for pure entertainment. But again, that is off-topic.

Finally, is "copyable" a real word? I half-expect NFiH to weigh in on this one.