RE: A life of ethics and Steemit...lets get fundamental.....philosophy ...part 5
No one has any agency over it.
So because nobody owns the ocean, nobody has any agency over it? In the case of the reward pool, clearly they do, everyone who has an account has agency over the reward pool and the witnesses. The reason the reward pool exists is so that everyone has agency over it.
the fish is not owned by anyone.
Wrong, the fish is owned by whoever catches it.
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.
The witnesses don't produce the reward pool. The reward pool is produced by a mathematical function. Even if the witnesses calculate that function, it's product is not theirs. They clearly are rewarded for the work of calculating the product of that function. And finally, if a fisherman chooses to release the fish into the street for anyone or nobody, only to rot they can choose to do so. You seem to think that people cannot abandon their property. They can. Here they can counter the inflation by sending their own steem to the @null account. That is owned by nobody, even if it's besides the point, the point being that the pool exists out of a mathematical function and it's not owned by the witnesses at all, it's worth mentioning because you are confused as to the number of options people have over their 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..
You can patronize me about what you think I known or don't about free markets and how they work all you want but you haven't the room to speak especially about freedom because you think consent is not what ethics is entirely in context of. You think that the witnesses and stakeholders are consenting to an unethical thing. Since no property rights are violated in what they consent to, there is absolutely no such unethical thing that they are consenting to.
Posted using Partiko Android
The ocean analogy is the best one I have read to describe what is taking place here.
Much like communism, free markets look great on paper, yet once people are involved in the implementation friction begins. It sounds more like a case of behavior by some other fishermen (particularly those with the best boats and equipment) are being (perhaps in many cases) implemented in ways that is unethical in the sense they are dick moves against others. But out on the ocean, the fishermen getting dicked by the better equipped fishermen do not curse at the ocean blaming it for the deeds of the wealthier fishermen. They either continue getting dicked by keeping to their same techniques/spots, devise a different fishing strategy or give up fishing there.
Agreed, that is what I took from it as well and was surprised to see his stance that it is not what is being asserted by the post.
Once one has stake, it is personal property. No one can take it from you (unless you are sloppy with your keys) and it also has a claim on the reward pool no one else can touch.
Until such a time as it lands in the safety of ones account, yes, pirates can come along and set all your fish free back into the ocean as you called it for other fishermen to divvy up. A dick move sometimes, yet not the fault of the pool/ocean.
As for people and their voting patterns, I have the right to give my vote to someone I like who may not write the deepest material over someone who I don't care for who may write profound stuff. It sounds like this is also being used in the OP as a source of ethics. Similar to socialism, where resources are to be redirected to things conspired more worthy, it is somehow wrong that I treasure some of what, lesser intelligence? over people who can put words together better. I have found many times it is those of lesser word mastery who have hearts of gold. I would rather see them grow over many intellectuals.
As always, a pleasure watching your dissection throughout this comment section. You have an uncanny knack for understanding the energy/intent behind words, which is a gift to witness.
There are plenty of flaws with meritocracy, but I don't expect anything in terms of discussion from someone so entrenched in the idea that meritocracy is the answer. With every single response he is sinking deeper and deeper into nonsense and absurdity and he's desperately trying to make himself look as if he has an argument or stance. He does not want to discuss a different strategy of distributing the reward pool, or exactly who's property rights are violated by the reward pool existing, or how it's not a perfect example of free market, and if it's not free market what is it, socialism?
lmao.
brilliant.
Oh, I know what you don't know, it's not difficlut to see...you just have a problem with it..
You don't know what you claim to know................ .... ....
Posted using Partiko Android