I'm saying in the case of Bill Gates and other industrialists, it's a messy situation full of nuance. I didn't say he was responsible for computers. He was the one whose software business did the most to make the PC as we know it into a household object, though. But his case is a blend of market entrepreneurship and political plunder. To say it was solely one or the other is absurdly simplistic. Government likes to blend its misdeeds with market action to gain an aura of legitimacy, and corporatists like to claim to be free market advocates while they feed off the subsidies and protectionism of government. That is why the word "capitalism" is such a source of fallacious equivocation in colloquial English.

"Taking back what is rightfully yours" becomes difficult with fungible cash. A realistic solution is to fight the thievery at its source in government and end the crony capital game instead of trying to trace the thread of finance. We may not be able to undo all political injustice, but at the very least, I think we can agree that stopping its continuation should be a first step no matter what.

And no, I am not saying Bill Gates was a Great Man whose vision was necessary to make the personal computer possible. The market was there. The technology was there. Had he not done it, someone else may have. Maybe Apple, Xerox, Tandy, Commodore, Atari, Amstrad or Sinclair would have become what Microsoft is now. Perhaps even IBM despite their bureaucratic bloat, although I doubt that.