A life of ethics and Steemit...lets get fundamental.....philosophy ...part 5

in blog •  11 months ago  (edited)

snap (5).jpg

We all live our lives by morals and ethics.

Ethics:
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice.

Morals are the thought content of the mind, and ethics are how we express those thoughts.
They are behavior.

Throughout history we have striven (very badly), to instill universal behavior.

The most obvious ones are 'thou shalt not kill', or 'that shalt not steal' (both of which fundamentally concern property rights. You are your own property).

ALL universal preferable behavior (UPB) ethics are restrictive - negative - and NOT positive, affirmative behavior.
Positive ethics are philosophically, and logically, incorrect.

If the ethic is self contradictory, then it can no longer be a universal ethic.
If it is ethically right to steal (a positive action) then nobody can ever be stolen from, as it is now consensual.(it is right to steal it cannot be theft).

All universally preferable behavior is restrictive in nature, and is more clearly defined because of this.
UPB and property rights are inexorably intertwined.

Property starts with the self.
Any ethic that contradicts this by advocating external impositions, contradicts this.

The non aggression principle is a UPB ethic, for example.

snap (5).jpg

What has all this got to do with Steem?

Lots.

Any structure not built upon UPB ethics as a framework is essentially a corrupt system.

Corrupt systems never endure, as they collapse in on their own hypocrisies, eventually.
Governments and the contradictory ethic of 'to steal is bad - and enforcing it through it's own law enforcement - but at the same time - stealing off every tax payer through coercion.

This philosophical hypocrisy - once seen - only leads to eventual decay - and destruction - of the said hypocritical system.

I point this out to illustrate that correct ethical principals will trump all other considerations.
(unless you believe the human being does not want to operate under ethical codes- that's sociopathic).

Structures built within the ethics of UPB will endure, just as ones not structured this way, will not.

I have been dissecting the steem whitepaper over this last few days - and I was shocked.
I mean seriously shocked.

This is supposed to explain things. (to intelligent investors? - fuckin' hell!!!)
And it does.
It quite clearly illustrates the 'logic' processes going on a steem inc. (and I would suggest either low IQ, or very high, IQ. I'll leave the personality types out of it, for now..).

In my next post I will dissect the paper - line by line- in my usual, 'not sarcastic at all' , happy clappy manner - from a philosophical, and UPB perspective.

But first.....

.....the principle of property rights needs to be fully understood in regards to steemit, and it's flaws.
(this is NOT to say steem will not have any success- it may well do - but that's a different subject).

Lets begin.....
For a free market to function, it has to respect property rights as a fundamental principle. It ...HAS.... to.

IT CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT THIS .

Without property rights there can be no free market - by definition of what a free market is.
(the free exchange of good or services)

Property rights are an essential part of this equation. You cannot buy or sell something that is not yours (or given to you by a consensual contract, to buy or sell).

The concept is not difficult to understand. In fact.... it is very, very, simple.

snap (5).jpg

SO.........

Steem is produced each day to fill up the rewards pool. This is done through the labors of the witnesses. It is their property.

The steem is then -by consent (in return for reward) , then put into the daily rewards pool - to be distributed among steem users in various ways.

At this point the witnesses abdicate their ownership of the produced steem. To who? They give it to no one , just a concept.
You cannot give property to a concept, only other people.
The reward pool is a pool of value, but not owned by anyone....?

To maintain the chain of ownership -ergo respecting the property rights principle - then the steem produced would have to be allocated to users on production, and not for some arbitrary redistribution based on stake size. (very marxist).

And here is the glaring problem...

At this point in the steem reward pool process, it then becomes no ones property!!

And this is the flaw.

You cannot buy, sell - or do anything with - something that is not yours without consent.

THERE IS NO ONE TO GIVE CONSENT - AS THE STEEM IS NO ONES PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.!!!!!!!!

The practical result of this in the steem ecosystem is a free for all, where the biggest stake holders have the ability to take the biggest proportion of the rewards pool.

It is philosophically corrupt - as property rights cannot be enforced.
(I won't even get into downvotng... it now becomes glaringly obvious...)

UPB cannot be the template of ethical actions - if their are no property rights.

Communal property rights does not exist - cannot exist - except in the delusional mind of the Marxist.

This is not to say property cannot be communal. (it can be, quite obviously).
But the rights to the property is totally different matter.

So in Steem, we now have a pool of value that somehow belongs to no one .

We also have a pool of people wishing to take as much profit as possible from that pool, for themselves.

( decided by stake size).
This cannot - ever - be a free market.

snap (5).jpg

Without free markets, there can never be true price discovery - as we can see everyday - $50 rewards for 5 words and $1 reward for a 2000 word essay.

If you are unable to see the glaring reality of this corrupt system, and use 'the free market' as some kind of defense - then you are totally incorrect in your logical, and intellectual perspectives. ... as shown above.
To try and defend the system with any reference to free markets or value - is to reference it to property rights.

Whatever your motives are for defending this structure , they are not motivated by the ethics of UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR .

This is misguided at best - or disingenuous and manipulative at worst.

The rewards pool is owned by no one.
It cannot be owned by everyone if profit motivations( which is a function of free market and price discovery) is in play.

snap (5).jpg

This has far reaching consequences to the long term viability of steem....

Systems built on meritocracy and ethical principles will endure.
Systems built on 'non free' markets will collapse.
Always.

Again this is not to say Steem will no have success in some capacity - short term - but as I said before in reference to governments - WHEN people eventually see the structural flaws in a system ans are not built around sound ethical principles, people will turn away from it.

Steem is not some radical new concept - it is a flawed philosophy loosely based around ' might is right', and communism...

And I'll leave it there.
The dissection of the whitepaper is next - and what a fuckin' train wreck that is.

Anybody sold on steem with that word salad - needs to seek some psychiatric help...

Anyway.... enough of 'how to make friends on a Saturday morning'...I'm off... for now..

(let's see if I now get $100 worth of upvotes...Because this is worth $1000 - It might be the savior of steem....)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

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.

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.

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.

  ·  11 months ago (edited)

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?

The reward pool is produced by a mathematical function.

lmao.
brilliant.

You can patronize me about what you think I known or don't about free markets and how they work all you want

Oh, I know what you don't know, it's not difficlut to see...you just have a problem with it..

snap (5) - Copy.jpg

You don't know what you claim to know................ .... ....

Posted using Partiko Android

This post has been included in the latest edition of SoS Daily News - a digest of all you need to know about the State of Steem.

You say that steem is not meritocracy, that the stakeholders don't merit the stake and power that comes with it, that it's only might is right.. Well nobody is forcing you to maintain or sustain such a system are they? Nobody promised you anything did they and if they did, it was surely not their to promise and the caveat is always BUYER BEWARE. Obviously the problem with your premise is that the stakeholders are the market, they decide what to spend their money / vote on, and nobody is forcing anyone to use their stake or not to, and they cannot force anyone. Everyone is free to invest or free to leave. The inflation isn't anyone until it is paid out, until then it's simply a matter of a mathematical function. Nobody owns it beforehand and even if they did, they can freely choose to release it for everyone else to vote on. It's inconsequential.

Much like a fisherman can choose to release his catch to anyone and everyone he pleases, in whichever way he chooses to, as long as he does not harm or cause injury to another. Yet the best comparison is to a company and it's stakeholders. They can choose to own stake and therefore decide as to the direction of the company, or they can cash out. So here, people can choose invest and decide the direction of the system with their stake and witness votes or they can cash out.

Nobody made any promises of returns and the way that steem functions is free market, people are free to curate as they want. You can compare it to might is right, but in a free market, one entity cornering any one market or multiple markets is not unheard of. The first monopoly was over olive presses, directly because one individual decided to use his "monetary might" to rent out all presses before the harvest and corner the market on olive presses and the demand for olive presses was so high because of his cornering the market that if he chose to do so, he could have ruined the livelihood of everyone who depended on them by refusing to share them at any price. So can people here ruin the demand for participating by buying up all stake and use it to reward themselves. Unlike in the other scenario where people could have simply used force to take the presses if he chose not to sell at any price, people here have no way to force anyone to do so though.

Posted using Partiko Android

Are you in love with me?

Why do YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT WHAT I SAY?

Have I hit a nerve in steem central?

Or moms basement central whatever

How old are you, John?

  ·  11 months ago (edited)

Get over yourself. As if I need to explain why I chose to dispel the nonsense that you write about steem, ethics and.. philosophy. Usually when people respond to others, they don't ask insipid questions about why they responded, and instead they are extended the exact same curiosity and decency that they extend to respond. If you don't value my response that's fine. If you have anything to say about what I said, go ahead and use your so called "high intelligence" and form a worthwhile response, or don't, and instead do what you've been doing so far, pretending that you find my responses and arguments hilarious.

Postmodernism and it's perspectives are mental illness - you seem to be mentally ill, by that definition ( I was, once).

Mockery seems to be the best medicine, John, not debate.

I'm trying to help.

What are you talking about you quack? What is postmodernist about anything I said? And you generally engage in assessing individuals mental health based on appearance over the internet? How dumb and desperate are you? Mockery is how you treat people with mental illness? You are no authority on anything based on you impotence on this subject. How many people have you successfully treated again? Your help was not asked for was it? Stop trying to avoid discussing the OP and trying to psychoanalyze me.

Posted using Partiko Android

Your help was not asked for was it?

Just as your comments were not asked for on my feed.
Free speech is fun isn't it?

Stop trying to avoid discussing the OP and trying to psychoanalyze me.

I don't need to - you are waving flags around telling everyone.(you just don't see it)

While you're on my property, I'll do as I wish. <<< That was bait - are you gonna take it?

lolol

What a quack. He posts and doesn't expect responses even though there is no option to refuse response on the medium. If you don't want my comments stop posting.

This is not 'your property'.

Posted using Partiko Android

...who's property is it, then?

You don't need to psychoanalyze me, but you do so anyway. When questioned exactly as to what you considered postmodernism, you have nothing to say. What a whack ass fake intellectual.

Posted using Partiko Android

This is not 'your property'.

ahhhhhhhhh! The fish bites....lmao

More cackling at my mental illness?

The fake is strong with the cackler.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'm not on your property. You don't have any claim of ownership over the responses to your post. They are not on your property. If you can prove I am on your property, do so.

Posted using Partiko Android

How small you must feel (shudders). I'm trying to help

Mocking me for pointing out your baseless nonsense? What exactly are you mocking me for?

Posted using Partiko Android

Just trying to help you grow up.

What are you mocking me for? Not being grown up because... What a quack clown.

Posted using Partiko Android

How old are you john?

BTW, stop calling me John. Stop acting like we have any kind of rapport, and stop pretending that you are a qualified psychiatrist or you know anything about mental illness. You see my screen name, use it. If you'd rather mock me I'm not stopping you, just don't expect me to not ridicule and make a mockery out of you though.

Posted using Partiko Android

I'll call you anything I like on my feed, John.

You see my screen name, use it

No, john , not on my feed.

Ditto you clown. You can keep responding to my comments too.

Posted using Partiko Android

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

  ·  11 months ago (edited)

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

Without free markets, there can never be true price discovery - as we can see everyday - $50 rewards for 5 words and $1 reward for a 2000 word essay.

If you are unable to see the glaring reality of this corrupt system, and use 'the free market' as some kind of defense - then you are totally incorrect in your logical, and intellectual perspectives. ... as shown above.

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 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

...you seriously need some glasses then.

If it's not a matter of fair Vs unfair at least explain why or how "it's not true price discovery".

true price discovery relies on free markets.
Free markets relies on property rights.

....the reward pool isn't owned by anyone.

it's only you insisting that your assertion is correct.

My assertion than universal preferable behavior is complicit with property rights is correct, that might explain it.

How is it glaring reality, and why, if it is so glaring it should be very easy to point out and explain.

....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

Why isn't it true price discovery? This isn't about property rights.

Your misunderstanding of free markets, property rights, and economy is on you, not me.

You're assertion is not correct because you insist that it is.

that's for a different post - but my assertion is correct (not my assertion, but hey).

You say that the reward pool isn't owned by anyone, and what if it isn't?

No one has any agency over it.

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 fish is not owned by anyone.

The pool not being anyone's property does not factor into price discovery.

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 don't seem to understand what consent is in this context, and that is where all ethic arguments begin and end at.

You then don't understand the concept of ethical principle. Context is irrelevant.

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.

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.

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

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.

The voting power (stake, Sp, vests) is their property and it entirely up to them what they do with it.

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..

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).

Interesting point of view. I'm going to give it some thought before responding.

No worries. Thinking is good... ( So I've heard, never done it)

...if the premise is correct- in regards so the reward pool - it's philosophically - ...sound. ( I think, without thinking about it)

  ·  11 months ago (edited)

You say that "this post is worth $100 dollars of steem" but obviously that is not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of what you think about the value of your own post, which if we are critical, we would acknowledge that you couldn't possibly be the best person to evaluate the value of your work, as you are going to be biased. Confusing ethics with the price of things/price discovery will not render any worthwhile investigation into either.

If you want to know what the market thinks of your post, you will take it to market, price it, and wait for people to buy it. If it doesn't sell, you will need to reevaluate the price and adjust, seek a different market or relist. If you want to make this about ethics you must declare a valid preposition and if it is valid you must argue exactly what is unethical or contrary to it, or point to what would be the correct response, the ethical response to the situation that you validly supported in your argument to otherwise not be ethical.

Confusing ethics with the price of things/price discovery will not render any worthwhile investigation into either.

I'm not confusing ethics with price discovery - I'm stating price discovery is an integral part of free markets.
Free markets are an integral part of property rights
property rights are an integral part of Universal preferable behavior.
They are ethics.

You need to stop conflating - it makes you look silly.

You say that "this post is worth $100 dollars of steem" but obviously that is not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of what you think about the value of your own post, which if we are critical, we would acknowledge that you couldn't possibly be the best person to evaluate the value of your work, as you are going to be biased.

How do you find a communist in a group?

Express humor and see who doesn't get it - in the slightest.....and there's the commie!

I'm not confusing ethics with price discovery - I'm stating price discovery is an integral part of free markets.
Free markets are an integral part of property rights
property rights are an integral part of Universal preferable behavior.
They are ethics.

You're stating that it's not true price discovery. This is a matter of fair Vs unfair, not about property rights.

You say that "this post is worth $100 dollars of steem" but obviously that is not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of what you think about the value of your own post, which if we are critical, we would acknowledge that you couldn't possibly be the best person to evaluate the value of your work, as you are going to be biased.

That has nothing to do with communism. The free market, the shareholders, they are the ones who decide what they would spend their Voting Power on, and ultimately how they would use their stake to curate. You argue that your post is worth one hundred dollars worth of steem, but obviously if nobody is buying it, your cannot sell. So then it doesn't matter if you think it's worth that much, all that matters is how much will someone else, not you, pay for it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "how to spot a communist".

Posted using Partiko Android

You're stating that it's not true price discovery. This is a matter of fair Vs unfair, not about property rights.

You are incorrect. Don't be obtuse - it's embarrassing.
.....this is a matter of you not being nearly as smart as I thought you were, mate.

  • or intentionally disingenuous. Both are similar.

You argue that your post is worth one hundred dollars worth of steem,
but obviously if nobody is buying it, your cannot sell. So then it doesn't matter if you think it's worth that much, all that matters is how much will someone else, not you, pay for it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "how to spot a communist".

I argue that commies have no sense of humor.
Sense of umor has some correlation to higher IQ's, did you know that?

  ·  11 months ago (edited)

You're stating that it's not true price discovery. This is a matter of fair Vs unfair, not about property rights.

Without free markets, there can never be true price > You're stating that it's not true price discovery. - as we can see everyday - $50 rewards for 5 words and $1 reward for a 2000 word essay.

Fair Vs unfair.

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

There is nothing unethical about someone buying something for less or more than the next person

Agreed.

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.

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.

What would be the ethical method to distribute inflation, and why and how?

That wasn't the subject of the post.

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.

A word salad,

it doesn't invalidate the moral premise for it

What the fuck is the moral premise, then? (according to the white paper)

...and by the way - what if it's not ethical?

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.

Even when everyone consents to that?

That wasn't the subject of the post.

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

Loading...

$50 rewards for 5 words and $1 reward for a 2000 word essay.

If you don't think it's fair you obviously can invest into the system and curate such things respectively. After all that is what you hold stake over: to curate/rate/review/express your opinion on how worthy or unworthy any item is.

You imply that downvoting is even less ethical than voting five words for fifty dollars worth of steem. Do you think that it's unethical to choose how to spend one's voting power, even when you claim to not be for or against people voting one way or another, and if you aren't for people voting one way or another, then why express this:

We also have a pool of people wishing to take as much profit as possible from that pool, for themselves.

Yes indeed, you want your post to be worth more than 3 times the highest paid post:

(let's see if I now get $100 worth of upvotes...Because this is worth $1000 - It might be the savior of steem....)

You essentially are the very same people you point to.. Why point to them again, especially if you don't care how they use the stake? Why indicate how they use their stake? Why whine about someone making more from five words than you do from 200,000 words?

Posted using Partiko Android

brilliant - absolutely brilliant.

Sure lol.

Posted using Partiko Android

Reduced to childish snickering, but then again, you could simply be laughing without cause, so reduced to senseless mockery probably.

Posted using Partiko Android

Congratulations @lucylin! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 21500 replies. Your next target is to reach 22000 replies.

Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:

Carnival Challenge - Collect badge and win 5 STEEM
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness and get one more award and increased upvotes!

Congratulations @lucylin!
Your post was mentioned in the Steem Hit Parade in the following category:

  • Comments - Ranked 2 with 178 comments