I argue that we should preserve the original intent of trying to align incentives so that people vote on others in order to gain for themselves via curation rewards.

You make it sound like that was the only way Steemit users were supposed to earn Steem, by curating content. Incentives are both for upvoting others and thus earning curation rewards and by creating content.

What you're arguing for is for Steemit Inc. to disable the ability for people to self-upvote because some Steemit users that have acquired large quantities of Steem Power are now upvoting themselves thus acting all greedy when in fact they shouldn't do that and instead they should give those upvotes to other people's content.

Witnesses are your politicians and can vote to change the rules. Convince enough witnesses to accept such a change and maybe you'll get your wish in one of the next hard forks.

I personally don't care if we have or do not have the ability to self-upvote.

It's not about socialism or anarchism at all, it's more like how to distribute newly issued shares in a company by peer voting.

There isn't one company here.

Everyone of us, here on the Steem blockchain, be it on Steemit, or on chainBB, or on other platforms built on Steem, represents a company. And everyone of us get to decide how we want to invest our earned Steem.

You can invest your funds in your company (by upvoting yourself) or you can invest your funds in other companies.

When I upvote someone else's post I actually, metaphorically speaking, from a financial point of view, buy shares in their company, which is represented by their post. Those shares, after 7 days, will bring me a profit, represented as a curation reward.