I do agree, although there are some folks I know need help, so I'll upvote them anyway.  Mostly, I don't upvote them as upvote themselves.

Although it's considered a faux pas to self-upvote by some, at the best it's an aspiration for a more voluntary/gift-based economy *(as opposed to exchange/barter)*, at the worst it's a needless idealism that causes unnecessary strife in the STEEM community.

**Would you be the designated cook for a family gathering, do all the work, and then not eat any of the food yourself?**

There are many people that come to STEEM primarily as investors. They don't really care much about blogging. Is 100% self-voting tasteless? In my opinion, yes, it's abhorrent. What about 90%? 75, 50, 25%?

This is subjective moralization of a system that, at its core, is intended to allow as close to maximum freedom when it comes to using one's own stake as possible. Guilting people for self-voting helps nothing. It's also quite useful to upvote comments in order to draw them towards the top of a feed. 

If this behavior is agreed to be dysfunctional, then something huge needs to change about how the STEEM blockchain functions in order to de-incentivize self-voting. (Even then, people will just use alt accounts and find other ways to achieve the same end - maximum profit.)
___
**Two basic ways to change the Steemit economy: 1) change the blockchain itself. 2) change the mentality/behavior of the users of the blockchain. The former is quite easy though requiring enough consensus. The latter is extraordinarily difficult, though capable of being affected by a single well- (or ill-) intentioned person.**