Actually, I think I'm on the same page with you. I just couldn't understand the second part.
Yes, people think this is a leaderless, anarchist system, but at the same time, people who have the Steem Power have the decision power. If that's what people understand from a free, leaderless society, I pass.
My last sentence was what I observed here. No one cares about what planktons do, because their actions don't matter anyway, at least financially. But everybody expects the minnows to behave well and abide by the unwritten rules. Yet again, whales are untouchable. They can get away with whatever they want, because they have the Steem, i.e. decision, Power.
Good thoughts! It's still my opinion that anarchy and capitalism can't go hand in hand. To me that's more like liberalism. On the other side, whales are more exposed. And people are critic about their behaviour. I don't know, if that's enough to provide the self-regulation of the community. When they just don't care about critic, they can go on in what they are doing. A problem I see is that it's impossible to flag investors, who are not posting anything, but delegating their Steem Power or always voting special people up. The flag wars between @berniesanders and @haejin is a good example for that. Without @ranchorelaxo @haejin's posts wouldn't go to the moon.
I would rather have some one trading with me, (that can happen, with or without money) Or some one giving something to me, from what he own and visa versa.
Than the only other option. Me stealing from some one else, (violence) and "giving" it to another (which is not giving or good i.m.o.) Or just flat out thievery
Or to say it another way; giving is a capitalistic deed (you give something that is yours, that you earned or got gifted in an honest way)
Trading with or without money is also a capitalistic deed (when there's no violence or theft. You also need the option to not make a trade and go somewhere else or make it yourself)
All collectevist system's (socialistic, democratic, communistic) take something with violence or the threat or violence, from some one else and "give" it to another. That is all it does, has done, and ever will do) It's not charity, it's not giving. It's a thieving system under the guise of being a charity.
Another small example.
If someone that call's himself a socialist that lives under a socialistic system is giving something that he earned or got fairly or made, to someone than that's not a socialistic deed, but a capitalistic deed, it's capitalism
So i.m.h.o. capitalism and anarchy are the only way to get the best result of a peaceful living together.
Theft and violence (a.k.a. national or international socialism democratic or else.......plus anarchy? ..........nah not so good :)
These are of course my thoughts. :)
The question I have about anarchy and libertarianism is how do you plan to solve the security problem without collecting taxes and maintaining an army?
A question I have asked myself is: will anarchy automatically lead to capitalism? I start to believe that maybe both aren't something like a system. But more like the essence of all human effort. It's all connected. We want to be free. We need money to be free. We only can get money from the community. We can't be free without the community? So it is good to give something back to the community? With everybody understanding these connections, I think, we would have a pretty cool society! :-) Maybe one in which we could even leave all these terms behind us.
We only "need money" in a city type situation. Back in the day people could grow and or raise their food and trade with others what they could not grow/raise themselves. It wasn't until the tax man threatened(with violence) to take away your owned land that we "needed" money. Sadly now we do. lest the gov lock us away and take our inheritance from our children.
I just want to survive. I don't care to be rich, just as self sufficient as possible. Perhaps helping and receiving help from my neighbors.
That would be lovely... small peaceful communities... but I don't know... I live in a village. And I don't speak with most of the people. Because they fight against each other because of bullshit. I start believing, that peace and freedom will always stay ideals. Because everyone means his own peace and freedom, when talking about it. What we really should mean is peace and freedom of others.
Roughly how big is your village? I'm not really sure what that means in Germany. I've been (not lived) in villages with 30-50 people and small communities with around 100-130 or so people. I know that usually there is always some level of drama amongst the locals. Most of the time it is involving a financial dispute or some variate, or a relationship turned sour.
I haven't answered this one yet. I am not really sure. I guess 1500-2000? But the "inner core" is far smaller. That's where all the drama takes place.
I read you reply again and thought I adres the first thing you say......hope you don't mind.
It's more the other way around. If you have voluntary trade (capitalism) without coercion then that in and of itself IS anarchy. (and that can also be that there is a commune that decide to live the communistic way but every individual has to voluntary want to do that, he/she can not be forced without agreeing)
I give a little example; to make something clear.
Let's say ( in situation A) I mow the lawn for my neighbour and he washes my car (we both agree and decided we are better of) than that is a voluntary trade.
(Situation B)
But lets say he has a car washer profession and he has traded his car washing for money from yet another person, then that is a voluntary trade too. (That other person trade with more car washers)
Situation C
Now let's say he want's his lawn mown and he offers me money that he earned instead of washing my car, and I agree and he agrees than that is a voluntary trade also.
Situation D
If I use that money to offer the money to for instance someone who want to have the money in exchange for washing the windows of my house. Again a voluntary trade. No one was forced to do something he/she did not want to do, and all agreed and wanted to exchange.
That is what is described as; the free market.
Also notice that if I mow the law for my neighbour and he washes my car that there is NO employer and employee or boss and employee.
And this goes for all the situations...even in the second example of my neigbour working for cash doing carwashing as a profession there it's called employer/employee relationship but it's actually only a voluntary trade between my neighbour and the person offering him money. And the same goes for the other two.
Employer Employee are terms that come with statism. Then it's easy to create divisions as rulers.
Wow you took so much time for replying to me! It sounds all good. But it's still difficult for me to imagine, how this all can work in reality. I guess I am living in a quite free country compared to others. I would wish for more and more freedom to come. But in a slow development. Anarchy to me now seems to be, what all human beings wish for in their hearts, often with not even knowing. Maybe this wish will grow stronger and our societies will develop this way.
I think it will take some time ....ah well see.
I don't always do that,but sometimes I have day's that I write such replies ;)
Today is such a day as you might have guessed.
I promise, now I'll stop.........lol
Cheers :)
XD Yeah we can get lost in topics, I am very similar. I wish you a wonderful weekend! See you! I feel honoured. Cheers! :-)
That's right, i believe. Both are not a system.
It's more like a description of interactions in reality.
That is indeed so. But using violence or the thread of violence to make people do that, only add violence, it doesn't add good.
I agree.
The making people understand part, takes communication and asking, doing suggestions for a better world.
I agree. I guess the terms are used for communicating ideas and what those ideas mean in reality. Maybe something like the Non aggression principle or the golden rule will be understood in the future in such a way that the words are no more needed. But let say that the word slavery was never "made" then we could not have communicated about that and at some point determine what it is or have the concept that slavery is evil, and maybe we should not do that anymore.
We can solve problems with words which otherwise would turn into conflict and violence.
Yes words can enslave, but they can also be used to free us.
This is a video ( from Stefan molyneux form before he turned back to statism) about words maybe you like it.
Thank you for the reply :)
Oh man, this is why I can't ever get a post written. You all are far to interesting to read and respond to. (unlike the likes of facebook) at this rate I'll never finnish my book. lol
I agree with you on that one, but I'm not so much bothered that much about abuse anymore. First, I'm using my 10 votes a day, which means abusers can't abuse my Steem Power. They are abusing the Steem Power of people who vote less than 10 votes a day.
Second, I have already proposed a solution to abuse problem. It received some feedback. If that solution is implemented, the abuse as it is happening now will not be possible in the future.
If it is not implemented, then it is the problem of the people who don't use their daily 10 voting rights.
And frankly, even though Steemit is an interesting project, it's not the only platform. There are a lot of other credible platforms and ways to monetize your content, if you want to.
I have a hard time voting less than ten posts/comments a day.
That's good for you! If every Steemit account voted at least ten times a day on posts they genuinely like, we wouldn't have any abuse problem on Steemit!
There would still be abuse. We would still have upvote bots that cost about 2-3X the reward pool draw which compounds with regular use, we would still have the comment farmers, and we would still have the misused down-votes. But there would be less of the reward pool pie for them to take if people did what you say.
I had to say there wouldn't be any reward pool abuse.
Comment farming, misused down-votes, and abuses like that can't be prevented with 10x upvote per day.
Good point! I haven't seen it this way yet! Calming thought! Looking forward to what is being implemented! :-)
In so far it's anarchic (anarchic systems don't exist, but you can have systems in an anarchical world) that there are no rulers that can force you to do anything.
To call them leaders............. I don't know. Steemit is a, or is like a, company.... social media. (but they are not you boss either) They could any time remove the monetary aspect from the posts (I guess) and continue like a sort of facebook or twitter or so (I'm not familiar with other social media)
What happens with reward pool "rape" is maybe built in, but then again If you are on instagram, you get nothing.
There is not even a reward pool to be "raped".
I edited in some komma's etc. to make it better readable :)
Actually, I'm advocating to get rid of the reward pool system and introduce a tipping system.
I've discussed the mathematics of the reward pool abuse with some brilliant people. The conclusion I came to is, that reward pool abuse in the current system can be mathematically proven to exist. There's no way around it.
The only way around the abuse is to replace it with the tipping system.
If you are a Steem Power investor and you don't want your share of the reward pool to be abused, vote at least ten times every day.