Now we're talking. I think you forgot about the guts. Instincts. Whatever happens at a subconscious level, yet influences our explicit thoughts. If you want

Now we're talking. I think you forgot about the guts. Instincts. Whatever happens at a subconscious level, yet influences our explicit thoughts. If you want to communicate effectively, mapping an idea to my head is not enough. You also have to keep my guts in check. For instance, if you're aggressive, it will be more difficult for me to hear you (my own aggressiveness here sure didn't help me get heard). Regarding "intellectual property", there are two things: the standard definition, that most people know in their head. And I agree this one is accurate. But we also have the connotations, the various feeling "intellectual property" triggers in their guts. Those are not accurate. People understand the term well at an abstract level. But at a gut level, they don't. That leaves them open for bogus arguments such as "we should protect property, including intellectual property". An effective con tool. Try on the other hand to say "we should protect property, including intellectual monopoly". The type error is obvious, an the argument doesn't fly. Two very different outcomes, yet the concept behind "intellectual property" and "intellectual monopoly" was the same all along. That's because of the guts. The two terms may in an abstract sense refer to the same concept, but they don't feel the same, and different feelings lead to different outcomes. --- Now if you're in the middle of an actual debate, there will be no avoiding the term "intellectual property", for even if you're wise enough not to utter it, the other party will. At that point, your only recourse is to point out that intellectual property is not a form of property, but a form of monopoly (and maybe take a minute or two talking about state enforced exclusivity). At that point, I would stop using the term "intellectual property" altogether. If the other party continues with "intellectual property blah blah", I will paraphrase the argument with "you said that intellectual monopoly blah blah" before making my next point. If we come to that, I believe most intellectual monopoly advocates will start to insist that "intellectual property" actually is a form of property. And we're back to arguing over definitions. The only reasonable middle ground I see is that we both stop using the terms "intellectual <whatever>", and start talking about copyright, patents, and trademarks directly (and possibly separately, for my current stance isn't the same on all three). But that's for longer debates. If you only have the time for an elevator pitch, you may have to use the more heavily loaded terms to make your point quickly.