Let's go philosophical here, since you chose to take it that direction. What makes it YOUR money? You earned it, yes? But what gives it value? An agreement with

Let's go philosophical here, since you chose to take it that direction. What makes it YOUR money? You earned it, yes? But what gives it value? An agreement with other people, yes? What do we name that agreement with other people? Can there be further stipulations? A price, if you will, for having the convenience of an agreed-upon currency, of a set of courts to seek redress if that agreed-upon currency isn't given to you for the work you've put in? Is it okay with you if that agreement tries to get more wealth into the overall system? How do you know if a solution will succeed at doing that unless you try it? That's a lot of questions, and few answers, of course. But I think considering these ideas through this lens may be useful. The concept of “my” money, “my” property, etc, is something we've agreed on. There's nothing that says there can't be more facets to that agreement. That is what we organize for. And ideas like this, and like welfare, etc, are ideas that are meant to raise well-being. People who do well tend to create, as well. And creation breeds wealth. So while the specific mechanism whereby we encourage this creation and well-being is something that's absolutely up for debate, it's your money only insofar as you're not trading it for a service. In this case, the service is, greater wealth for all. Will it work? I don't know for sure. But experimentation seems like a pretty good way forward, rather than simply sitting on our hands in a world where we believe we can increase well-being, out of fear that maybe our money might be misused along the way. If VCs thought this way, a lot of companies wouldn't exist today.