I see. I have a hard time with morality. I'm amoral but I agree with the need for terms and conditions for communities to endure. I like the idea you mention, "personal/individual responsibility/accountability", but at the same time I'm reluctant to accept rules that will restrict my good-faith actions, so I tend to visit laxer places rather than stricter ones (top reason I like crypto). That having been said, and as was said before, if the goal is to create a promising community, the characteristics and mechanics one wants for this would have to be established (something I'd rather do functionally, based on user satisfaction, instead of a pre-existing moral system), and then to create the rules.

One of the main problems I see with "free" communities is that not only are there no rules, but sometimes there are also no means for people to effect change. One of the main arguments for free market and laissez-faire politics is that people will incentivise what they want to happen, and they'll disincentivize what they don't. When interactive tools and possibilities are low, communities can't incentivize or disincentivize as much as they would like, and the supposed freedom fails because these systems favour breakers of sub-community rules, who will go unpunished. In this case, one good solution is to simply give more tools for people to interact with their environment, therefore allowing communities to establish their will and sovereignty under the desired scope. (Basically, increased interactivity => higher control => higher satisfaction => higher endurance)

All of this is to say that by starting from a moral system (such as JP insinuates with his comment about the superiority of the Abrahamic moral system), the leader of the community assumes the role of the community. Instead of allowing for interaction and self-regulation to occur, those roles are taken away from the individual by the ruling organization, and therefore, while control is enforced, it's not the same kind of control. One is control of the environment by the individual, and the other is control of the environment and the individual. Both models can give people satisfaction (it's not like people in China and in England live miserably and can't find anything joyful to do with their lives under overreaching states) and can bring economic prosperity to a community.

However, those systems also work differently. One (mechanically designed laissez faire without a priori morality) is "mechanism design"/"reverse game theory" as you described it, where tools are given to a community to enact change on their environment, all based on the principle of individual responsibility, and the other is a priori system design and management (imposition of a moral system) that switches individual responsibility from path-making to path-following.

In summary, I don't think that what you call the basic tenet regarding individual responsibility can be considered to be "morality", but the void of it, which will be filled, carried and utilised by each community and individual according to their own beliefs, needs, preferences, etc. And I like this more than the alternative (traditionally monocultural governments). :)