In all this you are glossing over what ownership really means (whatever that might be), and how that particular meaning is justified. It is inadequate to simply

In all this you are glossing over what ownership really means (whatever that might be), and how that particular meaning is justified. It is inadequate to simply proclaim it all as some axiom. You need to explain it rationally. Let us assume mixing of labour gives ownership. Does that mean the owner can demand everyone pay not just when buying the product, but every time they use it? or every time their descendants use it? or every time they merely think of it? That surely sounds absurd. But what makes that absurd and not lesser rights? Aren't they all fruits of the original labour? Wouldn't they all offer economic benefit to the creator? How are the limits set to what rights the creator should be given? You speak of the objectiveness and deducibility of moral rules. That is fine. So deduce the rightness of payment-for-copies, as opposed to the wrongness of payment-for-thoughts etc.. Somehow you are really going to need to refer to the real-world and its effects on people. What else is more fundamental? and that people really care about? And if you are to stay within any kind of bounds of normal ethics, any rules must be somehow general or universalisable -- that is what makes a rule ethical. (A Kantian demonstration of the immorality of lying really depends on two things: universalisation of lying as a rule, and the substance of what lying does. Something is found contradictory in general -- what? the actual effective features concerned.) Just look at the facts of reality. IP imposes restrictions on a beneficial abundance (copyability), where there is no intrinsic need. It is logically possible to compensate people for labour with no restriction on copies. And if you are not interested in the actual effects, why propose rules that have actual effects? Why not simply say that creations are owned in principle, but that everyone need only acknowledge that, and not in any way change their behaviour? Real rules need real justifications.