This decidedly not a Voluntaryist position as it precludes someone from using their property as they wish.
Voluntaryism requires the ability to volunteer. If all the land is already owned by one person who doesn't want you to volunteer, then what good is your ability to volunteer? The land on earth is currently, as I understand it - majority owned by the Crown Corporation and at the very least is majority owned by a tiny percentage of Earth's population. Balance is missing.
If an individual wishes to amass capital via their body and property, that is an entirely legitimate goal, as long as they are not initiating force against anyone else.
How does someone amass capital reliably without initiating force, when we experience a situation where those with the most capital have already amassed it precisely through force (of state, war and theft) over thousands of years? The current situation is one where massive imbalance already exists and it will not be balanced voluntarily, since those with most of it have no intention of changing the situation in any way at all. Voluntarism holds many answers but it does not address the legacy of massive imbalance as far as I am aware.
These “other creatives” you reference can do what the rest of us did, and work. They can also propose helpful changes to the system, and enact those changes. If the democratic process/template in place here results in top witnesses losing funding, so be it, I guess, I just think the attitude of “they don’t deserve so much” entitlement is extremely dangerous to the platform.
how much they 'deserve' is somewhat subjective - but it can be calculated too. my training and skillset is largely in designing systems for business and thus assessing exactly these questions. typically, business systems are designed to serve ONLY 'the elite' and I know for certain that this is the root of much suffering and hardship that I myself have experienced and been put through as a hard worker.
I am a professional software engineer (among other things) - I make software. I, like every other engineer that I am aware of, when asked to make projects for money - do some analysis, give a quote - then start doing a design and then make the solution. I am typically paid as each stage of the process is completed in order to allow me to be supported as I work on the project. In contrast, the current situation with Steem is that new projects are largely carried out in secret, with no community feedback (partially to protect IP rights) and with no payment - which means that the situation on Steem is actually less supportive of creativity currently than traditional capitalist culture is. Steemit Inc. is not funding outside development, to my knowledge. So there is a barrier to the network expanding that can be removed relatively easily. The funds don't NEED to come from witnesses, I am not rabidly attached to that idea at all - it just looks like an ideal candidate. The money could equally come from a reduction in post payout levels, but I think that the numbers involved probably suggest that the witness option makes more sense to me.
It’s the attitude I am referencing that I see in so many Steemians. This platform is not a handout center, but a stake-weighted voting platform. If you want more say, increase your stake. I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it, at present.
I am not 'many steemians'. I did not say anything about handouts. the project pool is for projects, not handouts. currently the stake weighted voting process rewards subjectively valued posts. the idea of also rewarding subjectively valued projects is not a shift in ideology at all, it's just a shift in focus intended to reward creativity and hard work! ;)
The state. Yes, as I said. The state, and not the market, or people with money, is the problem.
Do you honesty believe it is impossible to make money and own property without violating someone?
Your example about someone “already owning all the land” in the real world as a result of state force is not analogous to Steemit. Steemit was started as a risk venture by some individuals and joined consensually by users. No one is forced to be here and being forcibly violated as in your real world example. To compare the two is ridiculous, with all due respect.
That’s excellent that you are a software engineer. I just disagree that the whole blockchain should be forked to accommodate this idea when it could be accomplished by other means as @andrarchy pointed out.
In other words, less begging and more innovation.