Yes, but... there's a difference in what happens when you try to do away with them. Society without physical property rights requires everyone to abide by fair

Yes, but... there's a difference in what happens when you try to do away with them. Society without physical property rights requires everyone to abide by fair evaluation of what they need and what others need; otherwise, anti-communal individuals take things in order to enrich themselves. The people they take from are either non-violent and end up not being able to feed or clothe themselves—limited only by the conscience of the person taking unfairly—or else there's extra-legal armed conflict. Even if everyone agrees to the principle of equitable sharing, a communal ideal, there are still mismatches in different people's evaluation functions of need and ability. I think the drug market can be viewed as a microcosm of that. There are no state-enforced property rights in drugs, at least none that anyone outside the drug trade takes seriously. It doesn't turn out very well for anyone involved in the market. Even those who get rich from it are at greatly increased risk of turning up dead. Abolishing IP would affect income streams, but so does outsourcing, automation , and change in particular job markets or industries... the onward march of progress. I don't see that as a reason why it shouldn't be done.