The only mental gymnastic present here is your repeated attempt to create some kind of equivalence between intangible concepts and physical objects by using words like "property" and "stealing". In reality, the concept of property only has meaning with respect to rival goods, and it's impossible to "steal" conceptual content from people without performing lobotomies on them.

Your property rights extend to allowing you to assert exclusive physical ownership over the items that you have created or acquired through voluntary trade. Note that the concept of voluntary trade implies that making a living by taking advantage of speculative commercial opportunities is necessarily excluded from the scope of your rights: your ability to make a profit through trade is definitionally contingent on other people's willingness to do business with you. The commercial viability of your work is necessarily other people's "property".

When the work you're doing produces physical goods that you intend for sale, the distinction between your property rights in the goods themselves and your access to the commercial opportunities present for selling those goods may be blurred, since both are invoked via the physical object itself. But the distinction is still present: no one is obligated to purchase your widgets, but neither may anyone deprive you of those widgets without your consent.

But in the realm of pure ideas, which are intangible and non-rival, the distinction is much clearer: it's physically impossible for someone to steal your ideas. The best they can do is make their own separate copies of those ideas; they can't deprive you the product of your work itself. By making their own copies, all they're depriving you of is the opportunity to sell the idea to them. But, as we saw above, that opportunity was never yours in the first place; it was always contingent on their consent rather than yours.

Attempting to use positive law to create artificial "property rights" in purely conceptual "goods" is akin to a farmer lobbying for laws which punish people for keeping their own vegetable gardens. You're attempting to re-engineer the circumstances of other people's lives in order to force them to be your customers. The reality is that "intellectual property" policies violates other people's real rights in order to mitigate the risks of speculators, so I think it's safe to say that by advocating such a policy, you've already abandoned any pretense of "social responsibility".