I'm confused and disappointed by this comment. I can't decide if what I wrote was that unclear or if you're just flaming me, as I didn't say anything about sove

I'm confused and disappointed by this comment. I can't decide if what I wrote was that unclear or if you're just flaming me, as I didn't say anything about sovereignty, anything about law not having foundation in force, or anything about desiring to declare the independence of my garden. I thought we were talking about individual property rights and have had the rug pulled out from under my feet. Though it feels like I'm bringing a pen to a flamethrower fight, I'll attempt to clarify. In describing property as a "polite fiction" I am acknowledging that it is not real. Brute force is as real as it ever was, but in practice the abstraction of property means it is usually the option of last resort. We've all benefited from that. To wit, I consider the present notion by contrast a few degrees beyond (more advanced than) brute force, though you are right to say that it is not beyond (free of) brute force. So, to venture back to the original context from which we've so far strayed: although you try to cast the concept of intellectual property in an absurd light by putting it into an era of development in which it did not and could not exist, it remains true that the more fundamental concept of property was crucial to the same development beyond that era you claim intellectual property would have prevented. We grew by adopting a fiction, and now have an abundance of recorded history indicating that being a "figment of our collective imagination" is not a bad thing when it reflects the human perception of value better than reality. I trust you can see the parallel in the three centuries that ownership of a book has been distinct from the ownership of a copy of the book, or that at the very least you would not regard our intellectual development in that time as having languished.