Thanks for dropping in and reporting for duty! If it wasn't obvious from the post I am still trying to get my head around this and figure it out. Maybe you can help me.
I talk about Culture a bit in my post and you mention "people still believed they needed to be governed" and "the belief that any one group has any right to rule another" which I think we are talking about the same sort of thing. It's a way of thinking and behaving that is cultural IMHO. In the West we have a more individualistic culture but we still seem to have this mindset of needing authority or that asserting authority over others is ok. As long as that mindset persists then anarchy can never actually work.
Honestly, I don't know how to get past this without agreeing that it's ok for everyone be self-serving assholes and it's ok to screw each other over. I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on how we should (or even IF we should) be combating abuse and taking this platform forward because if things don't improve then I am opting out.
If you opted out it would be a sad loss.
I've posted before on the need to return to 50/50 author/curation rewards.
This 75/25 business, combined with the artificially high SBD, means voting power is most productive when self directed.
People will get a return on their SP.
Better they get it by winning fat curation rewards on quality posts than by upvoting low value posts in which they have a personal stake.
Ultimately, a lot of the problems we see will actually be solved by growth.
Let's say we hit 10 million users, and Ashton Kutcher arrives; will my voting power be more productive upvoting his best work, early, or by just upvoting myself?
It won't be long before careful, considered curation will be more lucrative than self upvoting again.
That's when the quality will really rise to the top; and everyone reading this now will be glad they hung around to see it.
That said; I think j2r is doing a healthy thing.
We seem to have developed an all or nothing, cultesque mentality here.
Take a month off. Just don't power down.
Your followers and balance will still be here when you get back :)
Thanks again for your considered responses.
Changing the way the system works is changing the code and since code is law on the blockchain it's effectively changing the law. But I don't think we can assume that the law is going to change. So, philosophically, how does an Anarchist deal with that? How do we deal with that here on STEEM?
When I mention abuse, I don't just mean self-voting I mean plagairism, deception, corruption and fraud plus a host of other forms of abuse I've seen. I am struggling with this philosophically. The Libertarian philosophy has the "Non Aggression Principle" which I often explain to others as "You can do whatever you want, as long as you're not hurting anyone" but I don't see Anarchism having the same safeguard. Do we need to form these little vigilante groups (like Steemcleaners) to go after the kind of behaviour that we might consider undesirable? If so, at what point do these vigilante groups clash? Do we form these little gated communities where you can't come in unless you agree to a higher set of rules?
I'm really trying to understand how this could work, but my pragmatic mind just seems to pick holes in the Anarchist ideals and the STEEM platform, as it stands, is a bit of a mess.