You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A life of ethics and Steemit...lets get fundamental.....philosophy ...part 5
There is nothing unethical about someone buying something for less or more than the next person, the thing you must resolve is exactly what is your ethical argument in regards to steem. You imply that stake based distribution of inflation is unethical, but that isn't reasoned. Why and how is it unethical. What would be the ethical method to distribute inflation, and why and how? If it is ethical then, the only thing is can it be implemented without it being unethical so it doesn't invalidate the moral premise for it, in other words not resorting to the means that don't justify the ends.
Posted using Partiko Android
Agreed.
My ethical argument is one of property rights and universal preferable behavior.
I not implying anything.
I saying an un- owned resource in a chain of ownership - of property - is illogical and ethically unsound.
That wasn't the subject of the post.
A word salad,
What the fuck is the moral premise, then? (according to the white paper)
...and by the way - what if it's not ethical?
Even when everyone consents to that?
My mistake..
If it isn't or if it is ethical is what you must establish. You seem to think that stake based distribution of inflation is unethical because.. the inflation is "communal property" and nobody has rights to it.. but then you say that it belongs to the witnesses, but then you say that they have no right to give it up.. You're all over the place.
Posted using Partiko Android