Actually, 'laws of human nature' or game theory, is just a political tool and should not have a place in here (it was used to take control away from the governments and give it to the corporations so that they police themselves, for example, if you design a car with faulty brakes, the government cannot do anything, game theory says the corporation will recall the cars and fix them because it pays them to do so). We've all seen the results of those theories, but, more important, I thought that Steemit was based on the free market.

In other words, I write a poem, a story or paint a picture. anarcho thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread and pays me $200. Whatever else anyone else thinks of my talent, to anarcho it is worth $200 and nobody else has the right to impose his own opinion on us by taking away most of that money. In my view, not only is he trampling on my rights and the rights of anarcho to determine according to his tastes what the market value of my work is, he is also stealing the funds from both of us, for after all, he may claim that the money is not mine until the week is up, but he cannot make the same claim vis-a-vie  anarcho. To him it will also feel as if his money was stolen, and so it will be so.

I am against flagging for any reason apart from controlling criminal behaviour, the rest of the time, market forces should be left to impose the conditions. That is fair; you don't like my work, then don't upvote me; that happens often enough, I'll realise I am wasting my time and move on, without anyone having to abuse me or harm my sense of dignity.

 The moment it is used  for personal users to impose an opinion, then I consider that act as becoming, itself, criminal behaviour and demeans what Steemit was meant to become.