Excellent thoughts, Harry. Thanks for putting them to paper. I especially like the "shareholder" construct for citizens. The Game B communities I mentioned in our earlier exchange have one fundamental underpinning: that all proceeds of that community are held in commons. As in, all are shareholders in the venture.
The mindset here is that the Finite, Zero-Sum Games most of the Game A world plays drives toward inequality and the ultimate demise (think corporate raiders) of the underlying entity. "Drill, baby, drill." Whereas the Infinite, Sum-Plus Games of the Game B communities invest in the greater good before the good of the individual. You mentioned Karl. Yes; but just because the forms it's taken have so far failed doesn't mean the ideas don't stem from the right place.
(If you don't know James Carse, you should. Finite and Infinite Games is a dense book on human philosophy that masquerades as a how-to manual.)
We understand this intuitively with (most) families. We don't expect dividends from our children, apart from a sense of accomplishment.
In the business world, look up Mondragon. They've been doing this for 80 years, since Franco. I wrote about them in "The Relationship Economy." That may be a decent use of your time, as well. I wrote that for The Startup (now rebranded Start It Up).
Thanks again for some great thinking.