Thanks. :)

Maybe the next level to this is to ask those who autovote what you might consider abuses of the rewards pool and ask them why? The reputation of the voters is on the line as well (to me, more so than the content producers). The voters are the ones who are using their stake to support a short-term approach to the value of the platform. I think authors should be free to do whatever they want and the community shouldn't respond accordingly to protect their investment. It also may mean some of those who believe as you do should save some of their voting strength to downvote those posts with a respectful comment about a disagreement in rewards distribution. If that starts a "flag war" then it further demonstrates how some people don't understand the difference between potential rewards and actual rewards. It's an opportunity for education.

We may not need government, not because people are angels, but because threats of violence aren't very productive or effective long term in a healthy society. Protocols, smart contracts, and engaged stake holders may be enough to make it work.