Yet another tale of a whale who downvoted a minnow because they disagreed with their opinion.
So, I just noticed one of my posts was flagged and the only possible reason for that is because the person disagreed with what I wrote.
Here's the post in question which clearly doesn't deserve to be flagged and contributes to the discussion.
The flagger in question, @the-ego-is-you downvoted my comment simply because he didn't agree with it. Now, I don't know if having 1000 steem power makes one a whale but flagging comments just because you disagree with them is just pathetic and damaging to this system. Why should new users stick around and make it grow?
I agree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is ok to voice you opinion but no reason for a flag.
You can come across as condescending though. That won't work very well in this community. (Reference- you comment on my Steem Island project)
Can i have a link to this island project pls?is it opened to everyone?
The person that flagged you is not a whale, so don't worry about it, if he was, your post would instantly be ghosted and your rep would fall. Most whales would not do this just because they disagree with a valid point.
Steem on!
Cg
You have been featured in the Steemlight, to check it out, go to, https://steemit.com/steemlight/@cryptogee/steemlight-issue-1-0-the-funny-guys
Featuring @lpfaust, @marcusorlyius, @lilrut, @lewisjfclarke, and @waynevan :-D
Cg
Yes, I downvoted because I disagreed with you calling anyone who wasn't for taxation "a dangerous lunatic" and so forth.
Simple disagreement on opinion aside, it looked more to me like you were trying to shut down the discussion, than contribute to it.
"Flags" only exist on Steemit.com and even there they can be used practically however you want to use them. Your comment is not automatically hidden outside of Steemit.com and in fact many user interfaces gladly display it.
If you want to discuss taxation in a friendly manner, I'm all for it. I come from the far left myself originally and have had many great discussions with socialists on this platform. But as of right now you are not a priority of mine.
Like I said, "Taxes are absolutely essential for a functional society, therefore anybody who is completely and utterly against taxes (a.k.a deranged lunatics) is against a functional society. They want chaos so that they can exploit it for profit."
If you think all taxes are theft and any size government is bad then you are actively arguing to destroy society - not change it for the better but to completely destroy it. Most libertarians are not that crazy. They understand that some governance and taxes are necessary.
People with such ideology are dangerous lunatics - they're extreme fanatics. Just like the people who are at the opposite end of the spectrum and think the government should have full control of everything.
You'll do better on Steemit if you provide full arguments rather than just statements of opinion.
Consider this;
I'm an 'anarcho-capitalist', who's for government, not for taxation, but for collecting fees, not for anyone to do whatever they want, but for constitutional federal networks and independent networks interacting voluntarily, not for conscription of any kind, not for collectivism, not for private war lords taking charge, but for cooperation.
I don't belong on the left or on the right. I don't break things apart, I build them.
You'll meet a lot of unconventional people here and you likely won't become knowledgable until you ask relevant questions and try to understand their point of view.
So, like ... "if you did to voluntarily pay for healthcare, they just let you die on the street after an accident "? Well, you could be alive after someone crashed into your car ... if you would have voluntarily payed.
Sounds like a country I would leave!
Nope, it's not quite that simple.
Mate, I've been debating with an-caps for over a decade, I know lots about the ideology. These are not just knee-jerk statements I'm making.
Not for healthcare either, nor welfare, nor any of the other thousands of things that are essential for a functioning society. You would only pay for shit that benefits you personally, as would others. You're ideology is one of individualism and isolationism and detests society and it quite clearly aims to destroy society. So, why pretend otherwise?
The only way such an ideology even begins to make any sense is if you were to put everyone on an equal footing to start with. I don't see you arguing for that though.
That's great to hear, but they don't represent me. I've been discussing and debating for a long time as well. You don't go from being a communist to being an anarcho-capitalist very knee jerk either.
Yes I am actually. So you can stop pretending like you know.
So, who's going to pay for all these state functions? Charity? Do you honestly think your fellow "an-caps" will be paying for unemployed peoples welfare benefits, education and healthcare costs? How about Republicans?
Would you qualify catastrophy and employment bonds as "charity"? How about providing alternative employment options, such as what we're doing here on the Steem blockchain? What about investing in insurance for all cooperative members?
Is that charity? I don't have any reason to doubt that there will be actual charity as well, but that's not primarily what I'm advocating. I'm advocating investing in people and infrastructure, because we all benefit from it.
Now what about the republicans exactly? Do you expect me to rely on them or did you suggest I provide help for them?
I'm not your average ancap, american, rightwinger, or even a rightwinger. I live in Sweden and I actually have experience from real life with real hardships. Get over it.
Personal time management rules say this is my last message here.
I don't see how either of those could be used to fund government.
I'm sure that'll work out great for someone with no steem power and no income.
I'm sure that'll work out great for all those without any money to invest and struggling to find employment.
No they're not charity. They're also not a way of paying for current and future functions provided by the government through taxes either. So, what was your point? That wealthy people can use their wealth to get wealthier and take care of themselves while the poor can go fuck themselves?
I'm asking you whether you think they'd voluntarily pay for "welfare queens" benefits, health care costs, children's education etc. We both know that they wouldn't.
So, how could society exist, without the funding it requires?