Steem is an experiment in decentralized budgeting and governance

Indeed. The way this is done can be based in a "Corporate Governing Culture" where the concentration of power is in those who have the most shares in the company: "I have more shares than you, I have more power to do what I want and you can't stop me."

Or... This can be done in a "Socially Self-Governing Community" to determine the direction of things where power is distributed to each individual so that no one person has more power than others in the community. Rewards and flags are decided by the actual users who user and create the community, not by power players who have the power to abuse and create injustice all on their own. Yes this can happen with an overall community, but that requires more effort. As it is, the balance of power can only be changed if other power players get involved to correct what another did, and that just doesn't seem to happen. 50 power players for thousands of people is not scalable, especially when a community potentially reaches 1 million.

With great power comes great responsibility, and whales have a responsibility to their fellow steemians to vote consistently and in the best interest of the platform.

Everyone has that responsibility, whether hey know it or not. Having one person, or a few decide that for everyone just because they have more money... is not too responsible.

It is clear that some people view this is a game to be played selfishly rather than as a team. The system was designed to prevent abuse by small players, but short of a benevolent dictator, is helpless against larger players.

Preventing abuse by small players can be mitigated by other small players who have more ability to help than depending on 1, or 50 power players to help everyone across the platform.

Steemit is based on the idea of a quorum of stakeholders being necessary to approve disproportionate dilution. A large whale represents their own quorum and thus has greater responsibilities to fellow token holders than a small minnow.

I am trying to get us to shift from the corporate decentralized power structure, to an egalitarian decentralized power to the community of users who build and create the community.

"Communities are built by humans, "clever technology" is merely the infrastructure." ~ @denmarkguy

Those pushing for more linear rewards are removing the need for a quorum and the end result is the pathological behavior displayed by some whales will play out on a wider scale.

Can you explain this more? From what I understand, you mean that the bad behavior of one is going to be worse when shared by many people who have the same mindset/behavior as others? That might be so if the bad behavior of one who has a concentration of power was corrected by another one who has a concentration of power, but this isn't happening. A quorum requirement, would that be satisfied with an elected council that reviews certain action, like flags? If no, please elaborate on what you mean.

Thank you for the feedback.