This is why every community needs its own currency and needs to defend its own standards based upon how it votes.
If we want steem and steemit to change the world toward a more voluntarist society, then we need to actively downvote and remove the profit opportunity from those who support statism.
This could result in group-think. This could hinder growth. So we have our selfish desire to change the world and maintain our identity as a community fighting with another selfish desire to sell out to the masses to "get rich".
The fallacy is to believe all opinions are equally valuable and that we should dilute our identity by awarding stake to those who oppose our principles. This is not censorship. This is a community with identity and values.
If we allow those who promote statism to grow via our upvotes, then we are in effect allowing censorship to grow by supporting those people. Censorship is something that only governments can do by interfering between the speaker and those who want to listen.
Steem could be corrupted just like propaganda has corrupted the masses. If that happens the voluntarists will have to start over with a new currency because the voters of Steem will implement a government that rejects property rights.
This would assume that supporters of statism can't acquire a lot of Steem Power using state power? Or that somehow states can't use propaganda and psy-ops to change the minds of some anarchists? It's a very complicated situation but I don't see who wins from political downvote wars. I think we all lose because Steemit becomes a less fun place, a much more serious place, and I can't see 100 million people being in an environment where it's constant warfare.
@r4fken statements are easy to take out of context, especially by those doing it on purpose to promote an agenda.
I will probably write another blog post where I clarify my concept of censorship.