Reduced to non sequitur/ nonsense, is this the last of the saga?

Seemingly @lucylin abandoned his position of ethical dilemma and yet, for some reason, I doubt that this is the last we will hear from the peddler of nonsense himself. To me he has thoroughly demonstrated he has no spine, no acumen for dignity and despite his proclaimed "overcoming the ego" and professed sanity he fancies everything as revolving around himself, much like why he thinks he's challenging some evil TPTB and that he's some kind of "leader" in information war. Yes, I'm gloating at the latest exchange between the idiot himself and me and I don't care what anyone thinks about that ;)

Enjoy:

https://steemit.com/blog/@lucylin/re-baah-baah-re-lucylin-re-builderofcastles-re-lucylin-who-is-baah-who-cares-information-warfare-up-close-and-personal-20190317t062602706z

Yet the shares and the vests DO belong to you. Much like fishing on the ocean is NOT meritocracy, it's both skill And luck, so saying that "it's not free market" is a non sequitur, fishing and selling fish work in tandem, but fishing is not selling fish and it doesn't follow that "fishing is not free market" because you have to established exactly why or how that is significant.

And:

You still have to define WHAT it is, if it's not free market.

---

For the uptenth time:

You don't have an ethical dilemma, only an equitable dilemma, and you don't want to acknowledge that that is exactly how business with shareholders function. The only difference is that this is A Game of sorts, not a business, much like fishing is a game AND a business.

And since you refuse to understand this, I will repeated it once more :

Nobody owns the blockchain.

Nobody owns the comment section.

Nobody owns the reward pool.

Steemit.com has a code of ethics.

Steem cannot have a code of ethics.

Steem is the ocean in the analogy of the fisherman.

Just because there is no code of ethics baked into fishing, does not preclude ethical behavior or encourage unethical behavior.

If you assert that without a code of ethics people will resort to aggression you must demonstrate that people, without a code of ethics, will be unethical, and you must do so in a majority anarchist society, as steem is, and point out exactly whose property rights or consent is violated or could be violated. You are abandoning your previous position though, of "ethical dilemma" by agreeing that no property can be violated, making Universal Ethics baked into the system by virtue of cryptography and clearly defined property, without any need for a code of ethics.

You must also reconcile the fact that you don't have a liberty bone in you, zilch, nada, despite virtue signaling to the contrary at seemingly any chance you can: because a liberty mind will not resort to authoritarian coding of ethics, especially when they recognize that humans can function without a code of ethics.

---

As for logic, or reasoning, you are lacking, that is putting it nicely.

You asserted umpteenth times: steem is not free market, because nobody owns the reward pool, but clearly free market is people taking goods to market, and without a way to PRICE A PRODUCT OR SERVICE you cannot expect anyone to buy.

Your logic is this: Shareholders getting profits from their stake/investments is not free market. So what? What made you think that ROI is the same as buying and selling? Another example would be, fishing is not free market. Or soccer is not free market. Clearly, you only have a non sequitur. It does not follow that fishing is about Trade. It does not follow that soccer is about trade, or owning stock is about trade. Yet, teams can buy players, much like people can buy stake, much like fishermen can sell their catch. Logician you are not.

Lastly, as for your slanderous nonsense about me, or your so called psychoanalysis, or your self diagnosed sanity, good luck selling that as true or correct or mildly applicable.

Posted using Partiko Android