I believe the fallacy here is that you are thinking the PENDING payout on a post is that users money.
The homeless person example isn't comparable because that is most definitely his money.
Steem has a 7 day pending payout period for votes to be decided, up or down. Until then you have $0 so a downvote doesnt matter. After 7 days, you have the payout. At that point, no one can take it from you.
I admit that when I look at rewards associated with a post - I see it as rewards that are slated for the work done on the post concerned.
I am used to seeing that carrot grow (or more often shrink) due to the way that Steem's value shifted - but to have another user diminish that carrot due to him or her feeling that the nutrients delivered to the carrot by other users was 'excessive' would ring more than a little hollow.
I am not inclined to consider this perspective a fallacy out of hand - and while I would agree that money that has been thrown into a beggar's hat differs from a share that has been slated to go the way of a post - it remains far from clear to me as to how a down-vote ofa reward - very potentially down to zero - is not to be taken as a slight against not only the would-be-beneficiary but also any individual who has up-voted the content in question.
Furthermore the 7 day payout period is a big part of the reason why Steem is currently facing a crisis concerning 'any' user appearing over-rewarded.
Surely that on-going saga has inspired support of downvoting as a solution - but the truth of the matter is that such is a short-sighted substitute for attention that really should be directed at Steemit Inc.
It is after all by virtue of, shall we call them 'oversights' that the present situation has come about - making Steemit vulnerable to celebrity siphoning.
Seeking to make it socially acceptable to use flags or down-votes to express anything less than a corrective measure would merely be enhancing the 'crabs-in-a-bucket' mentality that has been building among some within the community.
It will foul up the atmosphere - and we'll get to hear all kinds of abuse upon all levels of the Steemit ecosystem - and for all kinds of reasons - some a lot less nobel than others.
In spite of my strong emotions against the flippant use and abuse of flags, I concede that I do not yet have a long term solution in mind specifically tailored for the present situation.
As such I do believe that we are going to need to agree to disagree - our respective perspectives shared.
I disagree that we need to agree to disagree. At least on the overall topic.
You said you don't have a long term solution at hand ... neither do I. I do have a short term proposition that I have the means and desire to implement, host, and make available.
This will provide more information for determining a long term solution down the line.
We may not find any real solution without a hard fork at this point.
We can certainly agree that 'something' needs to be done about the current situation. :c)
Agreeing to disagree about anything is a healthy exercise that acknowledges that two standpoints each have their merits and where neither individual is particularly inclined to switch over to the other perspective.
It seems to me that your perspective is aimed towards users keeping each other in check by expending their voting power towards keeping any single user from getting over-rewarded for his or her efforts.
On the other hand I prefer to revisit the rewards foundation - to get a better idea of why content with value that is time-limited but admittedly useful to a person's followers is ultimately a lot better rewarded than posts of timeless value - and the helpfulness of which will only grow more apparent as time goes by.
A hard fork might indeed be necessary - but if such is the case then it makes sense to think through the consequences of potential fixes. A relatively recent past hard fork has had less than desirable effects from what I understand.