I've been dragging my feet on the sim. Help definitely needed, especially on formalization.

Last night’s comment was much too stream of thought. While much of it is true from a certain perspective it omits the theory of ownership supporting all of it.

We start with founding ownership in a certain way: the basis of ownership is self-ownership. I as a nervous system own my own body because of innervation, and we say that ownership itself is innervation.

This is intuitive. All our upset at violations flows from this sense of ownership of our own bodies. As people, we naturally extend this ownership to things we habitually use. They form extensions of ourselves, that even though we don’t enervate them, our operative control of them in proportion to how often and how effectively we do control them, give us a similar sense of ownership over even if it is not ownership in fact.

Understanding this, we can evaluate property claims. They are merely the claim that “I use that often, and it doesn’t object”, to some degree. This is common sense, and to some degree normative, since no one wants their habitual life supports taken away, just like no one wants their body violated.

If we see this, then we see there is in fact an ownership gradient flowing out from individuals and interacting with other’s gradients, and this manifold is the true ownership of everything that is not innervated.

Understood this way, we have all we need to query historical/legal property claims. All we need ask is who has some habitual interactive use of a given element. Apply this to the office building, and it’s obvious that the workers have the most claim. However, this is still on balance with the owner-of-record’s use, however problematic, as their habitual use supports their own life.

This tension is what we negotiate through the SEC transition and lease to mortgage change. Through the SEC transition, former owners receive support for their life, receiving family heirlooms and any other real property (real property being those things that no one but them habitually use). Through the lease to mortgage change, the true owners of the home by virtue of living there receive that acknowledgement and legal status, while those with fiat ownership through whatever economic coercion receive mortgage payments to ensure that to whatever extent they rely on those payments, they can transition to something founded in real ownership and not exploitation. [Edit: looking at this further, I’m not sure even these are helpful. No one should have to pay 60PMI a month to their former landlord just because they happened to accumulate more currency in the former system. It would also be rewarding those former owners for their exploitation instead of giving them a new start with everyone else.]

However, this is mostly beside the point, to the extent that these economic relationships from former owners do not have any true habitual use claims other than monetary enrichment. The Social Economy already equalizes purchasing power, so no one can claim that a monetary shortfall affects them more than anyone else. To make that claim would be to plead addiction to a certain lifestyle, and there are many other better ways to deal with that.

There's a lot to be said here, because as far as I know this is a novel gradualist approach to post capitalism. You're right that with current power disparity, and economic capture of political discourse, it's difficult to wager that both a representative and their party will stake their political life on an idea that runs contrary to their backers' base interests.[0]

However, if the greater idea were to gain traction, I (as someone who would not "benefit" from PMI currently) imagine that even the people who stand to lose the most could be convinced that equality creates a world they'd prefer to live in. If they aren't lockean, this could be as simple as, income inequality jeopardizes your empire. If they are, you really just tell them a story of people dancing in the street, new ways of being, and the glory and wonder of everyone reaching their full potential.

In realpolitik, it's a very simple equation. Everyone below the mean would vote for it, already a simple majority. Then add everyone earning more than their fair share, voting out of guilt, and you have as many votes as you need. It's only a matter of education to generate the political will to enact something like this.

Now, to actually enact the system, you would need some controls to prevent capital flight, because one way the whole thing falters, even if you build the coalition, is if former shareholders and "slumlords" extract "their" investment in the economy and ship it elsewhere, to a locale without PMI.

At some point you have to trust people, and say that yes, some people will extract their value and take it elsewhere, but the gains of a social economy for human wellbeing and resilience in the face of technological changes and post-scarcity far outweigh the loss from fleeing capitalists.

Edit: Thinking more about this, I'm not sure it matters, anyone can take their currency elsewhere, it just changes the baseline of average PMI, and they opt out. As long as they make no moves to ship production elsewhere, like actual physical extraction of machinery and other goods, the monetary flight doesn't matter. Only capitalists care what the number is.

If it's a real concern, like every capitalist invested in the US economy packs up their factories and servers and ships them to Ghana, let's just stop them? If it's to the point where we're all going to vote for this, there's enough political will to stop a mass export of the means of production. Let them sell their assets back to us, and take their funny money elsewhere! But what the peaceful transition with SEC buyouts is supposed to look like, even for people who want to leave, is everyone with a formerly outsized portion of property to whatever extent, gets excess income and contribution points as consequence of that excess income, and maybe they rehabilitate into free humans.

[0] This is spurious, as every extra dollar adds less life satisfaction, but is what the justification/rhetoric would be