My dear Hive account@silentwrath, Many thanks for engaging the post with a good discussion and point of view.
Here are my comments to few specific things you have said.

Appealing to people's sense of social morality never works.

That may be true, but I still think I have to say something about that at least. It may not appeal to many, but it may reach someone who has similar feelings and makes them feel supported and encouraged to do what they think is correct rather than feel forced to go with the flow.

You do not need laws when incentives are properly aligned

Although this idea is great, I still disagree with you that this is the only way to have a fair society. There are as many different incentives as there are different people.

The incentive to make money by posting on steemit is a global one, but still is abused by the majority because their incentives are not aligned with others. For example, my incentive may be to make 100 but also help others make 100 or 50 at the same time. Another person's incentive maybe making 100K and make sure no one else can make that at the same time.
Throughout history, If incentives are enough to make a society moral, we wouldn't have needed laws, religions, motivation etc

You most certainly do not need to appeal to a moral choice over a selfish one. They will be one in the same. As far as I'm concerned, any system that separates selfish from moral is a broken system.

It is true that each human has their own moral and selfish prospectives. The reason I call them prospectives, because what I may see as moral, someone else may see as selfish.
If I am appealing to anyone in my post, it would be to people that have similar perspective to mine. I am totally aware that appealing to someone with different moral/selfish perspective will not have an effect. However, that doesn't mean I shouldn't present my case or give my opinion on that regard.

On top of this, there is no reason to believe that this Minnow charity principle you are trying to put forward is fair either. Going against the grain to give to a Minnow is a potentially dangerous over extension of kindness. Your votes should go to the curator who you felt wrote the best piece, and no other reason. If that person happens to be a Whale, then voting for the Minnow out of principles is unfair discrimination against the Whale.

In no place in my post I recommended minnows to vote for posts that are not worth or stop voting for a whale who deserves their vote (or not).
The concern I am raising here is regarding the incentives of voting to a whale vs. voting to minnow that may have a good post that deserves to be seen and voted, but not being seen or voted.

While I don't object to you trying to make Steemit a more fair environment and work within its limitations, I tend to see them as futile.

Futile or not, I believe if I have words in my heart that carry positive energy and I can say them, then I want to say them. Who knows who will read them and when. Who knows if they will never have an effect or maybe they will one day.
What is never for us?
Its simply our life time, but the world will still keep going after we are gone. No one can tell what will happen then.

Keep your eyes open for another like Calibrae which might over come the failures that Steemit has stumbled upon. But until then, keep on blogging, because this is a block chain, and free from censorship from the ever oppressive forces around the globe.

Many thanks for the suggestion and the encouraging words :D