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?
How does its existence fall outside the parameters of existence itself, is what I am asking here. Software and computer programs are part of real life.
The programmers made this voluntary platform to function with this mechanism present. Those that do not favor this mechanism are completely at liberty to not join or leave.
As far as the "original loss in the exchange" I am not sure I understand what you mean.
Software and programs are part of the interface. I did not deny these exist, i denied that a tangible matter exists that could be described as the platform. In the end i don't think it matters.
Join or leave is not the only option. There remains the option to use the platform without using the down vote.
Since the programmers can't make anyone down vote, then why would a voluntaryist hold the position to down vote?
There is 'thing/reason' that should justify that action. A action against what will pay for (at least a fraction of)producing a post. What is that 'thing/reason'?
("original loss" represents the loss between what a persons time/effort is valued in producing a post, versus what the payout is for the post. Most users are operating at a loss in that regard.
Down voting creates more loss than the original loss. Even if it happens before time of payout.)
If concrete, tangible matter is what you mean by “real life,” then that is fine, but the fact remains that even our interaction now is occurring in reality, and the fact that Steemit is a thing in our reality remains unchanged.
I didn’t say join or leave was the only option. I addressed the reality pertinent to /AnCap-ism, which is that participation is completely Voluntary.
For whatever reason they choose.
Individuals always have reasons for their actions. However, whether these reasons “justify” the downvote according to your preference is irrelevant to whether or not the action is permitted under the Voluntaryist/AnCap property ethic.
As any AnCap will tell you, value is subjective. You cannot call this a “loss” if value is subjective. You seem to assume that there is some guaranteed rate a post should be worth. Their is no set guarantee of pay for X time spent crafting a post. Plus, and even more pertinent, is the fact that the rewards do not belong to the author until payout in this system, and that all users are notified of this prior to/upon joining.
These arguments are strange to me, because they betray a real lack of even a basic understanding of the foundations of AnCap/Voluntaryist philosophy.
You are more polite and decent about it by miles than @thoughts-in-time, but whether or not flagging is viewed as good or bad (I generally try not to do it unless there is spam or some sort of abuse/plagiarism present) is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is a Voluntaryist/AnCap permissible action. This is already settled, by the simple definitions of the philosophies themselves.
Perhaps the simplicity is what gives people trouble. I don’t know.