When it results in a concentration of wealth in the hands of people who can abuse it for political ends, or results in market crashes that cause knock-on impact to real humans - then yes, worrying about it is reasonable and justified.

Feel free to not trade in this market then. “Mom they won’t share” is also not a particularly convincing way to justify the right to other people’s money.

Why is it their money? Your're starting at the wrong point in time friend.

You need mommy just as much.

E.g. Chad Ungabunga sees alphanumeric living on fertile soil with an attractive woman so he's going to bonk him over the head with a club and take his stuff because he's bigger and stronger.

It’s their money if you follow the “force is only justified in response to force” principle. They didn’t obtain their money by force, so you can’t take it by force from them.

I believe that principle should be enforced by the government, that’s the only thing I need mommy for. Given that you also believe in police, military and courts, on top of a bunch of other shit (like stopping consenting individuals from trading their own money), no I don’t need mommy “just as much”.

Belittling people pointing out selfishness as merely being jealous is not the slam-dunk you believe it to be. And, as diordiderot points out, I'm not trying to _take_ anything from anyone, but rather pointing out that they way they accrue more wealth (and power, with which to continue to accrue more...) is dishonest, arises from inequity, and is a net-negative to society.

> if you follow the “force is only justified in response to force” principle

Ooh, ooh, do the Paradox of Intolerance next!