Memes of Production

It may be able to be used as a bargaining chip, but overall it would be much less valued under a society where gaining tokens of exchange isn’t tied to access to a decent life.

It would be less valued, you say? In a society where transferring value for labor is no longer able to be performed by money, and so the only other options are social connections or barter?

That's not even getting into questions like loaning jewelry out, social influence, etc etc etc.

Right now, jewelry is valued because it can then be converted to monetary units. Those units are valuable because so many are still clamoring for them to get access to those basics.

Again, most people in the modern world are not short of basics, but of things they want. It doesn't sap their ambition one bit. Only reduces their desperation.

Giving people their needs keeps them from murder, not manslaughter.

No. Personal property is defined as something that an individual or family uses. Private property is any excess resource or tool that an individual or family cannot use themselves.

This is literally what you said:

I like to link the word “private” with “privation” or “deprivation”. Private property is easily identifiable by its effects on others, specifically, it’s deprivation.

Then private property is no longer easily identifiable by its effects on others, now private property is 'excess' personal property, and the question of 'excess' is returned to use; and use, as we have established, can be highly irregular but still regarded as valid. Which means we return to square one - under what circumstances can one differentiate between personal and movable private property beyond "simply a matter of those who are liked by the community are treated well, and those who are not extroverted are punished arbitrarily?"

A literal palace probably couldn’t be reasonably justified as personal property, but for simplicity’s sake, most people who already own their home would be able to keep it, even if it’s large. However, it’s likely that the palace or mansion owners would then need to maintain those themselves if they wished for it to be just their own personal property, and they would likely find it very difficult to get others to maintain it for them without sharing it in some way.

Yes, that's how clientistic systems begin in early state societies and feudal societies. It's not pretty.

John Jacobs and the Palace owner (if they eventually found it unmaintainable on their own) would both be able to join a building collective to contribute to the construction of a more reasonable a home they could then own. They would also have access to the guaranteed basic housing available to anyone (assuming enough had been constructed by that point).

That's not at all an answer to the question that I was asked. I reiterate:

"If John Jacobs is living in a little shack on the side of the river, and Malcolm Red is living in a palace a stone’s throw away, how is it moral for Malcolm to continue in that state of affairs?"