You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A life of ethics and Steemit...lets get fundamental.....philosophy ...part 5
The steem is not the witnesses. They have their own steem that they get rewarded with for validating blocks. They have a part of the inflation therefore. The premise that the steem that gets created for the reward pool is theirs is not correct at all therefore. Even so, they all agreed to participate, and therefore it is consensual. Nobody is forcing anyone, that is why it's never about ethics. You are free to leave if you don't think it's fair. The fact is that this deals entirely with your view or belief on what is fair. Therefore, let's see if you can qualify and quantity what would be fair. What do you think would be the fair mechanism for distributing a pool of resources?
Posted using Partiko Android
I thought the witnesses produced it (and was confirmed by two other people).
Equating 'fair' to universal preferable ethics?
I never used the word 'fair' once...(you used it three times) edit - 4 times
You didn't need to use it once, it's clear as day that this is a matter of what you think is not fair. You said that
No emphasis was added, and obviously you think it's not fair that five words get rewarded more than two thousand. Ethics isn't what you are arguing, the crux of your argument is up there, all about you asserting that it's not "true price discovery".
How, when clearly the market decides what is fifty dollars worth of steem and what is one dollar. Why isn't it "true price discovery", which is a matter of fair Vs unfair? If it's not a matter of fair Vs unfair at least explain why or how "it's not true price discovery". Declaring that if one doesn't agree with the premise of it not being true price discovery because it's a "glaring reality" then their perspective is wrong isn't an argument, it's only you insisting that your assertion is correct. How is it glaring reality, and why, if it is so glaring it should be very easy to point out and explain.
...you seriously need some glasses then.
true price discovery relies on free markets.
Free markets relies on property rights.
....the reward pool isn't owned by anyone.
My assertion than universal preferable behavior is complicit with property rights is correct, that might explain it.
....Have you been smoking, John?
Why isn't it true price discovery? This isn't about property rights.
You're assertion is not correct because you insist that it is. That only makes you insistent on your assertion. You say that the reward pool isn't owned by anyone, and what if it isn't? When a fisherman goes and catches a barrel of fish from the ocean, which is owned by nobody, does that mean he doesn't own the fish? The pool not being anyone's property does not factor into price discovery.
Posted using Partiko Android
Your misunderstanding of free markets, property rights, and economy is on you, not me.
that's for a different post - but my assertion is correct (not my assertion, but hey).
No one has any agency over it.
the fish is not owned by anyone.
People (the witnesses) have already produced the property and are getting remunerated for their work..The property has now manifested.
It cannot be then be un property.
...you need to understand price discovery mechanisms and free markets - you sound like you have no idea about principles of property and free markets.
Nothing wrong with that - that's what learning is ll about..
The witnesses don't produce the steem. A mathematical function produces it, it's called inflation. The witnesses get rewarded with the proceeds from the function for validating blocks. Even if they owned or created the steem, they have all rights to give it up, especially when they all consent to do so, but that isn't what is happening. They are validating data, they get rewarded in turn for that. The inflation is a matter of a mathematical function.
Posted using Partiko Android
You don't seem to understand what consent is in this context, and that is where all ethic arguments begin and end at. You also don't seem to understand that property can be un-property as you put it. A basic example of this is donating and gifting something.
Posted using Partiko Android
You then don't understand the concept of ethical principle. Context is irrelevant.
Incorrect.
Donating a gift then gives the receiver of that gift that property previously owned by the giver of the gift.
Ownership of property is maintained.
Not if it's given up to nobody in particular.
In this case the fisherman can go and release all fish into a pond that nobody has claim to.
Posted using Partiko Android
You are also under the impression that the voting power isn't a matter of property and therefore what one wishes to do with their property is entirely on them. You seem to think that they don't deserve the stake that their voting power commands, but you call me a communist when you seem to hint at redistribution of their stake..
Posted using Partiko Android
The voting power (stake, Sp, vests) is their property and it entirely up to them what they do with it.
I offer no judgment of anyone about 'deserve' or 'not deserve'.
I'm stating that the rewards pool is an unethical model and not free market as promoted.
It is a false statement and a concept that is verifiabley untrue (my post)
I'm not saying it won't be profitable.
(Using UPB -and by extension property rights- as a template of ethical behavior. Which I assert to be correct, and will be the subject of another post).
Except that you don't explain what is unethical about it.
But you claim that them spending their voting power to distribute inflation that is generated for the people to distribute with their stake is unethical.
Posted using Partiko Android