Voluntaryism in Social Constructs, does it stand undeviating or does it adopt the Rulez?
Steemit is a type of social construct. It has practices, techniques and tools that are supposedly built in as social constructs, for participants to regulate events and occurrences that may be unacceptable to the social norms/wants/desires of the platform.
There has been some disparity about the use of the tools(down votes), techniques and practices, as to whether they are a form of aggression if used as intended/outlined within the social construct.
That brings up another question. If they are found to be a form of aggression, does the social norms/rules within the construct give Voluntaryists the opportunity/justification to apply that aggression, and deviate from what would be the Voluntaryist position outside the social construct?
As a individual anarchist my position is that discernment is a individual construct. It is the way I regulate internally my sense of justice, regardless of what social construct I enter or exit. Also as an individualist, I do not recognize that social authority is above individual sovereignty, therefore social authority that commands that I use aggression (even as a social norm) does not rise above the individual discernment of justice as a individual construct. I think this is a key to the axiom of Individual Self Ownership, that is often claimed within Voluntaryism.
What say you Steemians?
Aggression as defined by the philosophy of voluntaryism as the initiation of force agaisnt property. Downvoting does not constitute aggression as far as the philosophy is concerned, as pending rewards are as of yet no one’s property (they exist in the reward pool, and thus the account holder does not have ownership (exclusive use) over them until payout). On top of all this, Steemit is a platform which everyone here has joined voluntarily, knowing the parameters and system, and they are free to leave at any time.
There has been lots of wacky talk floating around recently about “spiritual voluntaryism,” and that downvoting is a form of aggression, but this is little more than the arbitrarily redefining of clear definitions of property as delineated in the Lockean and libertarian traditions.
Do I think everyone should flag all the time? Of course not. Is it violence if they do? No.
Ah that helps, I hadn't restricted aggression to only property. In some elements of anarcho capitalism the terms of aggression are a little wider. Specifically aggression against a person or their property. I don't know if that makes a a significant difference in what we are discussing, but it could be affecting my perception of what the operating parameters of Voluntaryism are. Making these small distinctions are important, as it is better to discuss matters as accurately as possible.
Maybe we are having some disparity in the terms of what the exchange of Steemit is supposed to be. I know in the real world, two people exchange values in products or services.
As it stands unless your one of the people who have significant payouts for your production, most everyone is operating at a loss, in inputs versus outputs. So to down vote any payout or potential payout is likely more of a loss than the original loss they were looking at. Is there a justification in voluntaryism that would justify that condition in the real world?
Maybe you are seeing a completely different construct than I am?
Could you give an example of a wider definition made by anarcho-capitalism?
Specifically aggression against a person or their property. The wider definition included 'person' along with property, I am not sure what assumptions you were making above, but that part appeared to be missing in the 'force against property' version you described above.
We may need to flesh that out in what it means to aggress against a person in terms of what we are discussing to know if it is relevant to the topic.
Right. AnCaps/Voluntaryists define property based on/as an extension of individual self-ownership. Aggression against a person (their body) is an aggression against property.
I could be wrong but the division of 'person' seemed to make the case for self defense, as if aggressed against a person through violence.
Again, i don't know if this enters the topic of discussion about Steemit, but there are social constructs that it would apply.
But to continue:
As it stands unless your one of the people who have significant payouts for your production, most everyone is operating at a loss, in inputs versus outputs. So to down vote any payout or potential payout is likely more of a loss than the original loss. Is there a justification in voluntaryism that would justify that condition in the real world?
Self-defense is part of Voluntaryism/AnCap-ism. Very clearly defined, too.
Social constructs do not change the objective reality that you are a self-owner.
This platform exists in the real world.
The platform exists to the degree of interface and data storage, but not to the degree you could take 2 pounds of it and throw it across the room.
So if there is a claim on consistency at all, what is the mechanism that justifies down voting any payout or potential payout to likely more of a loss than the original loss in the exchange?
Interesting thoughts.
I look at steem as a social contract. As it specifies what jurisdiction (NY,NY) and court (federal).
As far as using tools as outlined, I see no harm. Generally.
Please differentiate property. All property and blockchain remains respective to Steemit as Holder in Due Course.
Good points. My reasoning that it is a social construct is that it requires social involvement to exist. It is a little weak in one area that I define a social construct, but it appears to hold up mostly.
How/what do you see as a contract?
Offer and acceptance.
Steemit has offered for use of its platform services. We accept terms and conditions by using it. Essentially steem could goto hell, and cannot be made liable. (Reading terms of service and acceptance). All are essential elements in a contract. Even the way its worded is contractual. Social contract.
Steem is a social construct within Steemit. It is also not a tangible capital formation in and of its self, which makes it rising and falling or gone to hell kind of a obvious condition, unless your unaware of the nature of non-tangible capital formations.
;)
I was thinking more along lines 1 usc 83(a) as a form of "income" because we contractually give goods - services to an US company. You're correct though, should have chosen better fitting words.
Shoot, your, doing fine, I don't necessarily care to be right or wrong, but just hoping this thing called Steemit can be clearly understood.
Do we (users) actually 'give goods' though? We present thoughts ideas and concepts, maybe share experience, but we have the ability to erase all we present*, so maybe there is a time component. This is really strange compared to what the 'company' side of the platform is, because the value on that side, (from what I have read about other platforms) reaps value from traffic and investment, which are two separate constructs.
*except maybe direct monetary investments
Good points, have you looked at white and bluepaper?
I had read them months ago, I just re-read them. Have you had a chance to watch the video that had chance processes explaining accumulation?
If so, how would you describe Steemit? One of distributed Token per value exchange, or chance process accumulation?
(https://steemit.com/anarchy/@joesal/the-pareto-problem-and-capitalism)
So to recap, it appears voluntaryism can deviate as a person enters a social construct.
There exists the possibility of using the term in several ways.
-One is that a person enters/exits a social construct in a voluntary manner.
-Within the social construct one can in a voluntary sense agree to use mechanisms of aggression against a person and/or their property. (I will not at this time make a distinction that the person being aggressed against is within or outside the social construct or even consents to the aggression)
-As one enters a social construct one can in a voluntary sense agree to be aggressed against.
The fact that the meaning of the term can be obfuscated and often switched in debate, and declared completely resolved in definition by the user makes a case for the uselessness of the term.
Also it is unclear where the boundary conditions of the NAP should and should not apply. It is sketchy as to whether any statement can or should be confirmed to abide by the NAP.
With this observation, I no longer see individual anarchy and voluntaryism as compatible concepts.