This is part of the text from my reply. 
I think it stands alone here and would be useful for discussion on this page.

You assert that you can be objective.
Now, what I assume you mean by that is applying logic and rules consistently.

This cannot be done with government, as I'll show:
Exhibit A:
The first Ayn Rand quote -
""A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.""

It does not matter if you have objectively-defined laws.
Laws are not enforced by objectivists.
Laws are enforced by hired thugs - the police, and the laws, regardless of how iron-clad they may be, can be ignored at will. The only thing that changes is whether the cop or whoever enforces it or not, and that's not going to be an objective decision.

Likewise, there is no possibility of avoiding this issue.
With any systematically involuntary action, thugs will always exist.
What do you suppose they are the result of?

Exhibit B:
""The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.""

Let's translate that into what it is, shall we?

"The only proper purpose of a[n inherently unaccountable social institution that is defended on the basis of blind belief] is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence[, even though the existence of this inherently unaccountable social institution is the prime cause of something like 95% (the majority) of physical violence, if not simply the threat thereof to ascertain resources]. A proper [inherently unaccountable social institution that is defended on the basis of blind belief] is only a policeman[, someone who can murder people and get a paid vacation for it, as well as a defense of his actions by the general population], acting as an agent of man’s self-defense[, since being alive or free is a coercive and deadly force against man], and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force[, because taxation is not theft, and thus a threat of the violation of this very idea of not using force first, since it will be if the money is not given]."

Your statements in relation to the quote do not reflect the idea of the quotes at all:
"I defined government in these terms because I wish to communicate that it's not up to a government enforcer to build communities. It's not up to the powerful to increase the social and economic prosperity of a group of people. This is instead, the position of the individuals themselves. The whales are not responsible for the community, they are members of the community. They should do what's in their self-interest and only what's in their self-interest, as should you."

The rest of this is devoted to the combination of the idea and impact of the steemit economic design in relation to whales and the community as a whole being a specific portion of the internet, having gathered around based on mutual interest, which is a different ideological atmosphere.

I appreciate your post and this interaction. I hope you see you around again and to interact with you again as well. We could talk of much.