the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

Ownership is certainty of access and control, and collective ownership makes perfect sense.

No, it does not.

No person in the "collective" has any actually "certainty of access and control." Instead, they all have only the hope that the "collective" will end up in doling something out to them, but no certainty at all...unless that person happens to be the dictator running the Socialist state, in which case, he has very great "certainty of access and control." But he's the only one who really does.

[Advocate]

Ownership == certainty of access and control,

and "collective ownership" as a concept makes perfect sense.

Collective ownership in practice is often achieved at smaller scales. Politics is the management of larger scales of collective ownership.

We're exhibiting collective ownership of the atmosphere right now, nevermind the inequality bit. Neanderthals All did it.

It's a real thing, and you can stop arguing about it now. Shut up and drink the fucking koolaid.

[Immanuel Can]

Ownership == certainty of access and control, and "collective ownership" as a concept makes perfect sense.

You said this already.

It's still wrong.

[Skepdick]

You're missing the point completely. If you are only a member in a collective, you actually have so little power you don't actually "control" anything. The mob controls you.

Re-contextualising yourself as a "non-member of a collective" doesn't magically grant you power or control - that's tantamount to power/control being strictly psychological which, ironically makes it an illusion of control.

Yes, every participant, considered merely as an individual, does: but the collective whole has no definite identity of its own.

So we aren't all human? OK then... So I guess "reality" has no definite identity on its own either.

It has only the collective total of all the different personalities, intentions, directions and volitions in the group. When you're a member of the mob, you lose your power to the mob.

What determines mob membership?

In your objection, you've fallen into what is called "fallacy of composition." It's the belief that if something is true of an individual item, then it's true of the composite whole of many items. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... omposition

You keep falling for the fallacy fallacy.

Individual persons have control of their actions; but in a mob

Individual persons in mobs have controls of their actions too. And they have influence over others.

no singular intelligence or moral conscience controls the whole.

Yes. That's how decentralization works in self-organising systems. You might be pleased to know that Switzerland is a mighty-fine example of a decentralised system of governance.

The irony, of course is that is that de-centralization is a feature, not a bug. It's necessary for any segregation of labour to take place.

Instead, the whole is controlled only by the total direction of the group, regardless of intelligence or morals.

But you just said not to commit the composition fallacy. And here you are doing it!

It must be your dichotomized way of looking at things. Maybe you don't realise that all systems have control structures?

You just call them something else: communication channels/information flow.

All the "family" stuff you cite is irrelevant, so should be ignored. Even a "family" is not charged in court as a unity, if one of the members commits a crime. There's good reason for that: the court does not make the fallacy of composition, in that case. Moral culpability is personal, not collective.

You are conflating accountability with responsibility. Everybody is accountable for their own actions.

Who is responsible for morality in your family? Who has the power to "control and influence" morality in your household or are you all just "going with the group"?

[Immanuel Can]

You're missing the point completely. If you are only a member in a collective, you actually have so little power you don't actually "control" anything. The mob controls you.

Re-contextualising yourself as a "non-member of a collective"...

Hah. That's a switch.

No, you don't "belong" to the "collective," so you aren't "recontextualizing" when you recognize yourself as an individual. An individual is what you are: the "collective" is what everybody else, all together, is being at the same time. And they don't own you.

Yes, every participant, considered merely as an individual, does: but the collective whole has no definite identity of its own.

So we aren't all human?

I can show you the difference easily. Let's see you make "all the humans" do something.

What happened to your power? But it's probably true that "all the humans," if they gang up on you, can force you to do their bidding, or kill you if you don't.

It has only the collective total of all the different personalities, intentions, directions and volitions in the group. When you're a member of the mob, you lose your power to the mob.

What determines mob membership?

The surrendering of the individual will.

Initially, men choose to join mobs; but having chosen to get in, they lose their brains and can't even imagine how to get out, sometimes, or even want to. They lose their sense of individuality, and imagine that they are not morally-responsible agents anymore.

As Locke pointed out, God weeds that out. When we all stand before God to give our accounts (Locke calls it "The Great Day," i.e. the Day of Judgment), it will be as individuals. Whatever we did when we thought we were hidden in the collective, the collective will not be there to make our account for us.

Individual persons have control of their actions; but in a mob

Individual persons in mobs have controls of their actions too. And they have influence over others.

Well, they have moral responsibility and obligations, alright, but they often forget them, and behave like the mob. And as for influence, the individual has very little, unless he seizes leadership...like a Socialist dictator does.

Instead, the whole is controlled only by the total direction of the group, regardless of intelligence or morals.

But you just said not to commit the composition fallacy. And here you are doing it!

I'm not. The fallacy of composition attributes the features of an individual to a whole. I'm denying that the individual has the features of the whole. I'm on sound logical ground, there.

You are conflating accountability with responsibility.

No, I'm not. I recognize them as different but related. There's no accountability if there's no responsibility. As you say, every individual remains accountable for his own actions, because ultimately, he is responsible to God for them.

[Skepdick]

Hah. That's a switch.

No, you don't "belong" to the "collective," so you aren't "recontextualizing" when you recognize yourself as an individual. An individual is what you are: the "collective" is what everybody else, all together, is being at the same time. And they don't own you.

It's not a switch - what's surprising you is that I don't neatly fit in the boxes of your false dichotomy.

You are whatever you are.

"Member of collective" is one self-conextualisation/description.
"Non-member of a collective" is another self-contextualisation/description.

All 8 billion people on the planet can contextualise themselves as one, both or neither of those things.

I can show you the difference easily. Let's see you make "all the humans" do something.

Well, what's that got to do with anything? let me see you make your wife do something.

What happened to your power? But it's probably true that "all the humans," if they gang up on you, can force you to do their bidding, or kill you if you don't.

What happened to my power is that I helped make a bunch of people adopt this "Internet" thing from the mid 90s to the early 2000s.
And then I helped make a whole bunch of people adopt this "Google" thing from the early 2000s to the late 2000s.
And then I helped a whole bunch of other people adopt this "Cloud Computing" thing from the late 2000s to the mid 2010s.

Not only haven't they killed me, they keep throwing their money at me, they keep convincing their friends to throw their money at me too.

The surrendering of the individual will.

That doesn't mean anything. If nobody has any will to do anything then collectives can have no impact of any sort. Positive or negative.

Initially, men choose to join mobs; but having chosen to get in, they lose their brains and can't even imagine how to get out, sometimes, or even want to. They lose their sense of individuality, and imagine that they are not morally-responsible agents anymore.

And what about when the opposite happens? Like when the entire world turns on a German asshole with a short-man syndrome.

As Locke pointed out, God weeds that out. When we all stand before God to give our accounts (Locke calls it "The Great Day," i.e. the Day of Judgment), it will be as individuals. Whatever we did when we thought we were hidden in the collective, the collective will not be there to make our account for us.

It's not on me to judge your moral character- that's God's business. It's on me to organise the meeting.

Well, they have moral responsibility and obligations, alright, but they often forget them, and behave like the mob. And as for influence, the individual has very little, unless he seizes leadership...like a Socialist dictator does.

I guess you don't believe in meritocracy then, eh? I keep telling them I don't want to be a leader, so they keep putting me in leadership positions.

Annoying as hell!

I'm not. The fallacy of composition attributes the features of an individual to a whole. I'm denying that the individual has the features of the whole. I'm on sound logical ground, there.

You are ascribing "control" to collectives when you previously insisted that only individuals have "control".

Your notion of control seems rather fuzzy/flexible at best.

No, I'm not. I recognize them as different but related. There's no accountability if there's no responsibility. As you say, every individual remains accountable for his own actions, because ultimately, he is responsible to God for them.

Great! So you recognise there's a difference.

Who is responsible for controlling and influencing morality in your household?

[Immanuel Can]

"Member of collective" is one self-conextualisation/description.
"Non-member of a collective" is another self-contextualisation/description.

For many purposes, though, the self-identification as "member of a collective" is simply false. Try it in court, for example. Moral culpability is always individual.

Or try it on the Judgment Day.

I helped make a bunch of people adopt this "Internet" thing from the mid 90s to the early 2000s.
And then I helped make a whole bunch of people adopt this "Google" thing from the early 2000s to the late 2000s.
And then I helped a whole bunch of other people adopt this "Cloud Computing" thing from the late 2000s to the mid 2010s.

Ah. So you're proud of all that?
And yet "the collective" did not do anything of that. You did.

Initially, men choose to join mobs; but having chosen to get in, they lose their brains and can't even imagine how to get out, sometimes, or even want to. They lose their sense of individuality, and imagine that they are not morally-responsible agents anymore.

And what about when the opposite happens?

When men "don't choose to join mobs"? That's good.

As Locke pointed out, God weeds that out. When we all stand before God to give our accounts (Locke calls it "The Great Day," i.e. the Day of Judgment), it will be as individuals. Whatever we did when we thought we were hidden in the collective, the collective will not be there to make our account for us.

It's not on me to judge your moral character- that's God's business.

I didn't say it was yours. You're right: it's God's prerogative.

Well, they have moral responsibility and obligations, alright, but they often forget them, and behave like the mob. And as for influence, the individual has very little, unless he seizes leadership...like a Socialist dictator does.

I guess you don't believe in meritocracy then, eh?

Do you mean, do I believe that we need a monarch or a dictator, and it should be the person who "merits" it? No, I would advocate democracy.

I keep telling them I don't want to be a leader, so they keep putting me in leadership positions.
Annoying as hell!

You can always quit.

I'm not. The fallacy of composition attributes the features of an individual to a whole. I'm denying that the individual has the features of the whole. I'm on sound logical ground, there.

You are ascribing "control" to collectives when you previously insisted that only individuals have "control".

No, I wasn't. To "have control" is not at all the same thing as to "be controlled." It is, in fact, the opposite.

[Skepdick]

For many purposes, though, the self-identification as "member of a collective" is simply false. Try it in court, for example. Moral culpability is always individual.

Bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose

Or try it on the Judgment Day.

Can't wait for the day I finally get to judge your God.

And yet "the collective" did not do anything of that. You did.

You flatter me, but no. Such scale of impact is never the work of a single person. That's physically impossible. Even for your God.

When men "don't choose to join mobs"? That's good.

So we should've just refused to join the Allied mob against Hitler then?

I don't think I would've enjoyed speaking German very much.

I didn't say it was yours. You're right: it's God's prerogative.

Then why bring him into the discussion?

Do you mean, do I believe that we need a monarch or a dictator, and it should be the person who "merits" it? No, I would advocate democracy.

Wouldn't you say that in a democracy leaders are elected more or less on their ability to convince us that they are capable of leading us?

Which is pretty weird, if individuals didn't have any influence over the mob.

You can always quit.

I can, but if the next guy was competent he would've been doing my job.

No, I wasn't. To "have control" is not at all the same thing as to "be controlled." It is, in fact, the opposite.

So who do you think would be controlling you in a mob when you keep insisting that members of the mob don't have any control?

My, my. Look at how you've dodged the question again...

Who is responsible for controlling and influencing morality in your household?

[Immanuel Can]

For many purposes, though, the self-identification as "member of a collective" is simply false. Try it in court, for example. Moral culpability is always individual.

Bullshit.

Try pleading, "Your honour, it wasn't me...it was the mob I was with that killed that man. I'm innocent."

Don't wait until "The Great Day" to find out you were wrong.

And yet "the collective" did not do anything of that. You did.

You flatter me..

Given what your work is actually causing in the world? You speak too soon, perhaps.

Do you mean, do I believe that we need a monarch or a dictator, and it should be the person who "merits" it? No, I would advocate democracy.

Wouldn't you say that in a democracy leaders are elected more or less on their ability to convince us that they are capable of leading us?

I'd go further. I'd say that even democracy, while it is the best of a bad deal, is problematic, precisely because it can convince us that we are discharging our moral and ethical duty when we simply subscribe to a party.

But at present, there is no more preferable system, so we live with that imperfection.

My, my. Look at how you've dodged the question again...

No. I continue to disregard the irrelevant, though.

I did point that out to you a few messages back, so feel free to reread, if it makes you happy.

[Immanuel Can]

Can't wait for the day I finally get to judge your God.

Matthew 12:36. Jesus said,

"But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."

In kindness, I can only advise you to be careful what you say...for your own sake.

[Skepdick]

Try pleading, "Your honour, it wasn't me...it was the mob I was with that killed that man. I'm innocent."

That's precisely what happens with the doctrine in common purpose.

You didn't kill that man. But you were part of the mob that went to his house with the intent of killing him - guilt by common purpose.

Don't wait until "The Great Day" to find out you were wrong.

I am not waiting at all. I am no angel - I know I am a wrong, but your God is worse trash than me.

Given what your work is actually causing in the world? You speak too soon, perhaps.

Democratising knowledge/information is a bad thing according to you? Well, we should've stuck with wide-spread ignorance then. That was much better.

I'd go further. I'd say that even democracy, while it is the best of a bad deal, is problematic, precisely because it can convince us that we are discharging our moral and ethical duty when we simply subscribe to a party.

Then don't make that mistake. Good leaders have the responsibility to tell their constituents when they are wrong.
Or quit if they no longer agree with the will of the people.

No. I continue to disregard the irrelevant, though.

How is it irrelevant? I want to know what your "individualism" looks in practice when you are a member of a collective called a "family".

[Scott Mayers]

Capitalists have no compassion.

Funny. Socialism has spread misery and oppression across the world. Capitalism, meanwhile, has been defeating world poverty. And you say it's the Capitalists who are the bad people?

I'll stack up my microenterprise charities against your Stalins and Maos any day. Let's see where "compassion' really comes from.

You mean the 'oppression' of the 'oppressors'? Awe, isn't it sad and torcherously abusive that the kid who hoards all the toys should have to be forced to stand in the corner alone while the rest of the kids are permitted to play with them instead!

[Immanuel Can]

Awe, isn't it sad and torcherously abusive that the kid who hoards all the toys should have to be forced to stand in the corner alone while the rest of the kids are permitted to play with them instead!

I actually don't have a clue what point you're trying to make, Scott. So I guess you're going to have to explain it or leave it mysterious.

[Scott Mayers]

There are plenty who do. But I notice that the Davos Socialists aren't among them.

What is this 'Davos' conspiracy?

Not a "conspiracy." It's a public fact. See https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021 Note that the current dictator of China is one of their charter members.

Oh,...you mean the "World Economic Forum" held in the city, Davos, Switzerland! How do you presume you know them as devious when the issue of their privacy is at issue? It is held in a country that itself FAVORS secrecy due to its political 'neutrality'. It is actually a capitalist's haven for hiding money too. The fact that the group has a right to convene based upon a right to association and privacy alone that you have when you OWN private space to do the same doesn't phase you?

As to who is invited, what does China's Chairman matter should he be there too? In fact, in contrast to the convention's intention, he'd be a guest of relatively oppositional stance to most of the others there, of which the predominant majority are capitalists. As to their planning, they are no different than U.N. but are actually practicing the very concept of negotiating among different interests of pollitical views with respect to economics in areas that would be normally repressed due to their in ability to BE anonymous like your own status here!

Why did you not mention that your prefered label, "Davos group" was actually the World Economic Forum unless you are not being intentionally deceptive in the way that forum was intentionally set up as. The means of permitting such a forum is to permit OPEN talk in a 'safe' space where those who would normally believe in anonymity of thier private capitalist interests would be exposed. The fact that we do not know the SPECIFIC details AND that this forum only meets once a year should tell you that it is both UNKNOWABLE that it IS some 'conspiracy' AND that it is UNLIKELY to have any reasonable threat being OPEN to its convention's existence alone.

I'll tell you what, ...you penetrate the PRIVATE property where this convention is held and get some EVIDENCE of them conspiring to behave in sync against all others for merely DISCUSSING economic issues, and then we'll talk. Oh wait...you'd have to reveal who YOU are then or I might interpret you as conspiring to discredit them for some other secret club you possibly belong to!

What is your definition of 'wealth'?

I didn't know you felt it was a contested term. It can be a bunch of things. Usually, it means money. But it can also be framed or expressed in other ways, such as popularity, opportunities, assets, power, so it's not quite that simple.

What's your definition?

Answering a question by asking me instead as though it would matter? I've proposed to define 'socialism' to you (from an actual participant in the process) as a general description of governments to favor legislation that helps PEOPLE by services that distribute the wealth. But I get accused of NOT defining it as I'm sure you will do after this post again once it is buried far enough and seemingly forgotten.

So you'd have to demonstrate your own sincerity by accepting the defintion rather than simply denying it as meaning anything but 'evil'.

Answer: we started doing it, until COVID and the Leftists stopped us, just a year ago. We were exporting Capitalism, in various ground-level forms like microenterprise, to the Developing World at an astonishing rate, and thereby doing the unthinkable: actually eliminating world poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019 ... 86x550.png

If the world is RUN by wealth (fact), what does it mean for them to assert whatever good in the world is working well if there is STILL poverty in the world (without a need to 'project'?

I can't understand this question. Can you say it another way?

You just mentioned the "Davos" Group as conspiratorial. But they are made up of various people who inevitably have power of the economy often by means of having wealth. That is, you assert them as running something you think is 'socialist'. Yet you claim what the 'World Bank" has claimed without noticing that these are members too of this very group?

Furthermore, and to what I was meaning prior to connecting this last fact above, the question can be rephrased as, "If those with capitalist tendencies speaking FROM 'wealth' about the the problem of 'poverty' elsewhere (not among themselves), then WHY has this world ever yet not been able to demonstrate prosperity for all?

You are like presenting yourself like the "Network Marketing" scammers trying to argue that everyone can rise to the top of the pyramid regardless of the logical fallacies and math involved. That is, there is NO means for everyone to actually BE equally prosperous as those on top of the pyramid. It is not possible in principle for everyone to be Billionaires because it would mean that each has some claim of debt (money) in which you can cancel by trading it in for real products or services. But if everyone were 'equal' Billionaires, it too would be no different than socialistic communism except that you seem to think that we could all be relieved that none of us HAVE to be the servants of one another!

All people are just extensions of the matter and energy...

If that's true, then none of us owes anyone anything.

A lion, for instance, 'owns' what it forcefully can kill and defend of its own literal physical strength.

Oh? You're a Social Darwinist now? Humans are just like lions? If so, killing the zebras isn't wrong. It's just what lions do.

Better hope you're a lion.

THEFT, DECEPTION, or means to FORCE keeping,

None of which can be objectively wrong, if people are "just extensions of matter and energy." Matter and energy are never "wrong": they just do whatever they do.

Yet you have to think this way when you are a 'capitalist' who resists any 'socialist' role in government. And this is why you also like religion to play a role over the masses: since the reality is bleak for those without power, you need a means to manipulate them by PRETENDING there is 'justice' for those who remain servile and obedient to the supremacy of the 'owner' classes.

I already recognize the default Nature to be cruel. But why is it that I'm still favoring a system that is relatively artificial?: As an artificial construct of 'civilization', I prefer to live within a society that is 'fair' contrary to the nature of the Beast to rule without. The concept of 'government' where it isn't merely the whims of PRIVATE OWNERS ruling over tresspassers without a need for accountability to them as tenants, the rule of the many ACT as the very billions of bacteria that can take down lions. In other words, while it may be 'natural' for lions to be empowered to rule, it is equally 'fair' for the collective mob to use the 'natural' advantages of numbers to overpower the strength of those individuals ruling as though they think they are all powerful.

You are against the means of the numbers when you go against 'socialism' (as per my provided definition given) because you believe that government should not be provisional to HELP those who cannot succeed on their OWN independent merit. Yet you think that where there IS government, it should serve to be AGAINST those specifically who dare to impose defiance against the power of those who 'own' it by their private privileged status. If the government does not serve the social needs of people EQUALLY, regardless of what wealth they have, then ONLY the wealthy BECOME the 'government' which is indifferent to a private club who collectively agrees to disempower the poor. And the means to disempower the poor is to PREVENT them from equal entry. If the system is set up to favor you ONLY, and you have the means to set the price of advancement, you cannot argue that it is 'fair' for all others to even get in by 'merit' because you have the power to define HOW MUCH effort is required. You set the standards that you beg are 'fair' (because they are fair for YOU or those of you who DO have power in representation in 'governing')

Not even 'remotely'?

Well, let's take an example. Bill Gates made his billions by inventing a machine that people freely buy, and love. (You're typing on one now, no doubt, so you're a voluntary supporter of Bill Gates's wealth.) Bill Gates employed thousands of people directly, and millions indirectly. His employees eat, have things, and are healthy, and have disposable income because of BG's invention. He didn't steal from anybody, and nobody got poor because he got rich. Every purchase of his computer was voluntary, and people love his invention. What's more, Bill Gates has also given abundantly to charity, including much work in the Developing World, through the Gates Foundation.

So now, what "promise," what "debt," does Bill Gates owe you?

I thought Bill was one of us 'socialists' by you? Note that while I disagree with his degree of success, he does happen to be one who led the meanst to DISTRIBUTE their own wealth and promote the idea of strict merit (not favoring your own exclusively without resepect to the masses.)

Where he WAS abusive in his gains happens to have been specifically in his original means to 'capitalize' on OWNERSHIP claims of copy right and patent ideas. He did NOT create computers, by the way. His initial step of success was how he noticed that IBM was NOT claiming proprietary ownership of THEIR efforts, an unusual example of a corporation either being 'friendly' to keep computing open to all OR by some accidental oversight that no one would take 'capitalistic' advantage of the technical lack of official patenting. The mistake is akin to someone who might have thought that the letter "I" could be copyrighted but that no one yet has done so in some society that permitted it in law.

He succeeded to take 'ownership' of the foundation of the Basic language software that was built into early personal computers. It acts to be a BIOS operating system language which controled how all other software run on it would be subject to. Since he found a loophole to declare it his own, IBM concept computers that derived the standards for all by the design implemenation of all non-proprietary chips, he was able to take a percentage of all computers sold with Basic in its BIOS. He also set up his operating system (MSDos) (as hired) FOR IBM with his means to declare a percentage of each computer sold with this.

His final trick to success was to capitalize on devising a system of profiting by diminishing customer service that all companies prior to that defaulted to. That is, he is the one who initiated the 'help' COMMUNITY forums by option when absurdly overcharging those with his latter "Windows" systems for those who needed help. For instance, it asked for something like $50/minute for help over the phone OR one could optionally seek out for 'free' online in these forums for help that costs trivially compared to the prior means of business.

The point of expressing these details is that the means to 'success' are often about using relative 'deception' in some way. Fortunately, today he has now opted to 'pay back' voluntarily in ways that are 'socialistic' to a large degree. Yet this is shunned if it should become part of a formal system of socialism through government where this behavior is unusual, not to mention unrepresentative of the nature of extreme wealth that he has such that he could give away billions still with billions left over. That is, percapita wise, the 'sacrifice' to kindness is not proportional in the same way that 50% tax to someone poor could be enough to break them.

I'll take Bill Gates' form of compassion as a relative 'socialist' in contrast to those like Trump who lack the same voluntary compassion any day, though. While the world still favors the wealth regardless, if it ISN'T volunteered by such unusual characters, the only other alternative is for the masses to protest in more unwelcomed conflicting means to gain power.

If you actually wanted to be intellectual about this, you should be trying to argue how and why laissaize faire still works better for all.

And yet, I prefer to argue a point I believe in. You'll have to live with it.

And it gives me also a means to argue with reason why 'socialism' (as I've defined it) is appropriate in light of your best means to malign it as corrupt without justice.

[Immanuel Can]

...the "World Economic Forum" held in the city, Davos, Switzerland! How do you presume you know them as devious...

I don't "presume" anything. They state their agenda.

As to who is invited, what does China's Chairman matter should he be there too?

Would it trouble you if Stalin and Hitler showed up, and were all enthused about their agenda?

I'll tell you what, ...you penetrate the PRIVATE property where this convention is held and get some EVIDENCE of them conspiring to behave in sync

Don't have to. Anybody who can read can read it for themselves. Their book is called "COVID-19: The Great Reset." When you've read it, if you want to talk about it, I have my copy here.

If the world is RUN by wealth (fact), what does it mean for them to assert whatever good in the world is working well if there is STILL poverty in the world (without a need to 'project'?

I can't understand this question. Can you say it another way?

You just mentioned the "Davos" Group as conspiratorial.

I don't think I used that word. A "conspiracy" usually involves some secrecy. These are open megalomaniac lunatics.

...they are made up of various people who inevitably have power of the economy often by means of having wealth. That is, you assert them as running something you think is 'socialist'. Yet you claim what the 'World Bank" has claimed without noticing that these are members too of this very group?

Oh, I noticed, for sure. You should notice too. It's "Socialism" for you. They're not going to put their own money in any common pool; you can count on that. If they were going to do that, they'd have done it already, and they'd be poor.

THEFT, DECEPTION, or means to FORCE keeping,

None of which can be objectively wrong, if people are "just extensions of matter and energy." Matter and energy are never "wrong": they just do whatever they do.

Yet you have to think this way when you are a 'capitalist'

No. You can, but you don't have to. You do have to think this way if you're a Darwinian.