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?
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.