Copyrights and patents are the opposite of property. The term "intellectual property" is a complete lie. You could probably make a strong case that it is proof

Copyrights and patents are the opposite of property. The term "intellectual property" is a complete lie. You could probably make a strong case that it is proof there is such a thing as a "Big Lie". If you have copyrights and patents, you do not have property rights. Once you implement those, you then remove the rights people have over their atomic property, like computers and paper and printers et cetera. You cannot have a logical conversation with anyone who uses the term "intellectual property", because at that point it would be like trying to talk to someone about "fire water". There is no such thing. The reason why that term became so big is that because during the Cold War capitalism and property rights were all the rage, so the proponents of copyrights and patents jumped on the bandwagon and rebranded their issues to be about property rights, even though they were the opposite. It was a very shrewd move, and I'm amazed at how effective it was. It would be like the cigarette industry was able to convince people that cigarettes were actually "health sticks". That is why you will never see me ever ever use that term, and instead I will refer to them as "Imaginary Property" rights, and encourage everyone else to do so (I read the "Imaginary Property" term for the first time right here on HN). So all that said, I am a strong believer in property rights. I believe Marx was wrong, and that property rights are an engineering solution to the problem of "how do we assign decision making power over scarce atoms in an efficient way". I believe the real problem is copyrights and parents. Abolish those and you will eventually unchain the minds of billions of people, and we will be living in a lot more intelligent and prosperous world.