Your argument is terrible. Nearly all of the things you mention (excluding new cars perhaps) are inherently available from many different sources. Food, water, etc. Go to probably millions of distinct habitable locations on earth and you will find them. Companionship is available from billions of people, healthcare from millions of providers, etc.
In nearly all existing proof-of-stake systems, the stake is highly concentrated by anywhere from a handful to possibly a few thousand people, in the latter case a group which likely has large internal concentration.
Moreover, the nature of paper wealth is that it is not subject to physical constraints of space or crowding and concentrates to an extraordinary degree. Nearly all of the paper wealth (trillions or quadrillions) that exist in the world are controlled by a handful of banks, or in turn collude via entities such as central banks and the IMF. That control over the bulk of wealth allows them to extend that control all the way down to banning weed stores from getting bank accounts and encumbering nearly all physical wealth in a web of debt.
Any system based on control of notional wealth is in practice permissioned.
Systems based on control of physical devices such as computers or even physical phenomenon such as electricity may become permissioned (as I would suggest Bitcoin largely has at least for the moment), but they have a fighting chance in a way that wealth-based systems such as proof of stake do not.
In nearly all existing proof-of-stake systems, the stake is highly concentrated by anywhere from a handful to possibly a few thousand people, in the latter case a group which likely has large internal concentration.
Moreover, the nature of paper wealth is that it is not subject to physical constraints of space or crowding and concentrates to an extraordinary degree. Nearly all of the paper wealth (trillions or quadrillions) that exist in the world are controlled by a handful of banks, or in turn collude via entities such as central banks and the IMF. That control over the bulk of wealth allows them to extend that control all the way down to banning weed stores from getting bank accounts and encumbering nearly all physical wealth in a web of debt.
Any system based on control of notional wealth is in practice permissioned.
Systems based on control of physical devices such as computers or even physical phenomenon such as electricity may become permissioned (as I would suggest Bitcoin largely has at least for the moment), but they have a fighting chance in a way that wealth-based systems such as proof of stake do not.
My Argument is better than yours,
yours required a person be enclosed completely in a sealed system. (Complete Fantasy)
Stake has to be traded , if the owner want to buy anything with it, if not why do they even bother to stake.
Any Wealth paper or otherwise has no point if it is not traded, how many rich people do you know that don't spend a penny of their money for food , if nothing else, therefore guaranteeing they are not in a sealed system and destroying your premise.
