Self-defense is part of Voluntaryism/AnCap-ism. Very clearly defined, too.
Social constructs do not change the objective reality that you are a self-owner.
This platform exists in the real world.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Self-defense is part of Voluntaryism/AnCap-ism. Very clearly defined, too.
Social constructs do not change the objective reality that you are a self-owner.
This platform exists in the real world.
The platform exists to the degree of interface and data storage, but not to the degree you could take 2 pounds of it and throw it across the room.
So if there is a claim on consistency at all, what is the mechanism that justifies down voting any payout or potential payout to likely more of a loss than the original loss in the exchange?
How does its existence fall outside the parameters of existence itself, is what I am asking here. Software and computer programs are part of real life.
The programmers made this voluntary platform to function with this mechanism present. Those that do not favor this mechanism are completely at liberty to not join or leave.
As far as the "original loss in the exchange" I am not sure I understand what you mean.
Software and programs are part of the interface. I did not deny these exist, i denied that a tangible matter exists that could be described as the platform. In the end i don't think it matters.
Join or leave is not the only option. There remains the option to use the platform without using the down vote.
Since the programmers can't make anyone down vote, then why would a voluntaryist hold the position to down vote?
There is 'thing/reason' that should justify that action. A action against what will pay for (at least a fraction of)producing a post. What is that 'thing/reason'?
("original loss" represents the loss between what a persons time/effort is valued in producing a post, versus what the payout is for the post. Most users are operating at a loss in that regard.
Down voting creates more loss than the original loss. Even if it happens before time of payout.)
If concrete, tangible matter is what you mean by “real life,” then that is fine, but the fact remains that even our interaction now is occurring in reality, and the fact that Steemit is a thing in our reality remains unchanged.
I didn’t say join or leave was the only option. I addressed the reality pertinent to /AnCap-ism, which is that participation is completely Voluntary.
For whatever reason they choose.
Individuals always have reasons for their actions. However, whether these reasons “justify” the downvote according to your preference is irrelevant to whether or not the action is permitted under the Voluntaryist/AnCap property ethic.
As any AnCap will tell you, value is subjective. You cannot call this a “loss” if value is subjective. You seem to assume that there is some guaranteed rate a post should be worth. Their is no set guarantee of pay for X time spent crafting a post. Plus, and even more pertinent, is the fact that the rewards do not belong to the author until payout in this system, and that all users are notified of this prior to/upon joining.
These arguments are strange to me, because they betray a real lack of even a basic understanding of the foundations of AnCap/Voluntaryist philosophy.
You are more polite and decent about it by miles than @thoughts-in-time, but whether or not flagging is viewed as good or bad (I generally try not to do it unless there is spam or some sort of abuse/plagiarism present) is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is a Voluntaryist/AnCap permissible action. This is already settled, by the simple definitions of the philosophies themselves.
Perhaps the simplicity is what gives people trouble. I don’t know.
Well, our interactions aren't even occurring in real time, one of us engages with a interface, that data is stored and retrieved by another. It is real in the sense that we are engaging in a interface and retrieving data. It is different from a interaction where your communication is coming from your biological construct to my biological construct directly without a digital interface.
If a person wanted to interact with another in what they called "real life" I don't think the expectation would be that they would go to a screen and keyboard to interact. This doesn’t have much pertinence in issues of solely communication, but it could have a lot of issues when it comes to value exchanges, and the problems associated.
-Those that do not favor this mechanism are completely at liberty to not join or leave.
Man, for some reason that just really doesn’t look like something an Ancap would write. I mean an Ancap would probably be appalled by a mechanism that would destroy a chunk of payout. Maybe my expectations are off and other ancaps are free to join in here, but I would expect that to sound more like:
Feel free to join, but be warned or aware of this mechanism.
-Individuals always have reasons for their actions. However, whether these reasons “justify” the downvote according to your preference is irrelevant to whether or not the action is permitted under the Voluntaryist/AnCap property ethic.
If it didn’t matter and judgements were only made in the ‘spirit’ of the philosophy then terms such as Spiritual Voluntaryism could arise. Now until it can be parsed that the judgement doesn’t come from that sense, it is just as valid as any other, and it may be this way for some.
Some of this starts to be important, if there is a claim of self ownership/individual sovereignty and adherence to a claim of philosophy, then discernment of how judgements are made matters.
This is where the voluntaryist will either have a undeviated adherence to the philosophy, or invest authority into the social construct. (Note this has nothing to do with me or my preference)
If the reason (for down vote) is to improve the quality of the social construct, then the voluntaryist has become a agent of the social construct.
If the reason (for down vote) is to guard the quantity of the reward pool, then the voluntaryist has become a agent of that social construct.
The problem I am struggling with is how can one claim individualism, while also being a agent of a social construct?
The simplicity is not a problem for me. The way I see it is the payout is for the posting effort. Downvoting reduces that payout, which is a form of aggression against the payout. The payout is property(or at least virtual property).
Only when one goes to justify a action that would be counter to ones philosophy is there long obfuscated reasoning. I’m not saying this to be ugly at you or any form of ad hominem attack, but as observing people attempting to justify action that runs contrary to their belief system.
Greetings Agent Smith and Joesal, just wanted to drop
in and say that I'm really enjoying your back and forth.
(ツ)_/¯
To have meaningful discussions it takes time, and long form comments, plus a healthy dose of respect in finding the other persons thoughts, and perspective.
The way the internet and comment formation typically occurs, tends to propagate the opposite. Short comments, with much assumed perspectives.
Unfortunately I think you and Graham may have fell into hostility by the briefness of encounter. Grahams message is positive 90% of the times, and maybe a little edgy here and there, but I think he means well. One of his strong values is in defense of the ideals/ideas of voluntaryism.
All of us have 'warts' of some kind, but that should not blur the fact that there is a human within.(with the exception of authoritative socialist, those bastards aren't human at all...ha)
We still have problems, even within the comments of this post. we have repeatedly talked past each other and have several things unresolved, but at least we can discuss these things without ad hominem attacks which takes a lot of conflict out of it.
Constant discernment of anothers perspective often sharpens your views on what are your own.
In this way it is like steel sharpens steel, and one is better defined by each encounter.
This is useful when encountering someone who is in complete opposite of your position, but it is many times harder when their view is very close, as the parsing of differences becomes more detailed and at length.
There is a saying I don't know where it comes from, but it goes something like:
"We are hardest on our own."
Individuals exist within societies. If Voluntaryism does not suit one because it allows for this, that is perfectly fine. There’s no need to redefine the clearly defined term, however.
What is the optimum measures of sovereignty then, the society or the individual?
Why is it important to define that?