I understand your point, but it is still not the same. He doesn't have to give away his wealth in order to spend reward pool money. The reward pool is owned by the Steem community and distributed according to a set of unnatural rules.
Provided all the users are in agreement on how the property is to be used. When disagreement happens use of force is common. The same happens with private property. As long as other people agree that the property belongs to someone, there is no need for force.
Yes, but the same is still true for common property. I own both private and common property. If I wanted to use the common property in a manner not agreed upon by my co-owner, force would be employed to stop me. Threat of force stops me from attempting it.
the use of force is also arbitrary. Using it to uphold social constructs that would not normally arise is not natural. (Unless you want to argue everything that exists is natural)
It doesn't have to be a physical thing to be pertinent to the conversation. It is a fact. Neither communism nor capitalism are physical things, but they are both relevant and logical.
" He doesn't have to give away his wealth in order to spend reward pool money"
actually they lose the opportunity to use it on themselves, so even if its not relevant its still wrong
I understand your point, but it is still not the same. He doesn't have to give away his wealth in order to spend reward pool money. The reward pool is owned by the Steem community and distributed according to a set of unnatural rules.
"The reward pool is owned by the Steem community and distributed according to a set of unnatural rules."
capitalism itself is an unnatural rule. Private property can only exist through force
"He doesn't have to give away his wealth in order to spend reward pool money."
that has nothing to do with capitalism. Its just investment capital, the most destructive form.
"Private property can only exist through force"
Isn't the same true for public property? Is force not a natural phenomena?
it is the same for public property. Common property on the other hand needs no force between the users
Provided all the users are in agreement on how the property is to be used. When disagreement happens use of force is common. The same happens with private property. As long as other people agree that the property belongs to someone, there is no need for force.
threat of violence is what keeps private property private. That has been shown in every society where that force is not present.
Yes, but the same is still true for common property. I own both private and common property. If I wanted to use the common property in a manner not agreed upon by my co-owner, force would be employed to stop me. Threat of force stops me from attempting it.
" Is force not a natural phenomena"
the use of force is also arbitrary. Using it to uphold social constructs that would not normally arise is not natural. (Unless you want to argue everything that exists is natural)
A being that occupies a previously unoccupied space has a natural right to that space. Regardless of social construct, that right is established.
"that right is established."
That's not a logical argument. A right is not a real physical thing, just an idea.
It doesn't have to be a physical thing to be pertinent to the conversation. It is a fact. Neither communism nor capitalism are physical things, but they are both relevant and logical.
" He doesn't have to give away his wealth in order to spend reward pool money"
actually they lose the opportunity to use it on themselves, so even if its not relevant its still wrong