He's deluded.
Property rights means that we own the fruits of our labor. As a result, we own what we create. That's the free market perspective.
The problem is the reliance upon governments to enforce property rights. That leads to surveillance, which is not acceptable.
Governments therefore are the problem, not property rights or ownership of the fruits of one's labor.
Another problem is DNA patents.
We shouldn't be able to patent the DNA of other people or organisms.
"The purpose of property rights is the prevention of physical conflict. An essential characteristic of property is exclusivity, meaning that the use of an object by one person prevents it from being used by another.
Intellectual property and physical property cannot exist side-by-side as logically independent legal constructions. Anything that gives control over physical things necessarily limits others' control of those things, and therefore acts exactly like a physical property right. If you have an intellectual property right to your monograph, you may prevent me from copying it, thereby limiting the physical property right I have in my ink, pen, and paper."
Stephen Kinsella is mistaken as usual. If I create an artwork, that artwork does not hinder him from creating his own artwork.
The problem is if someone copyrights something that is so simple that others may reproduce it by mistake. He is using that absurd case in order to dismantle property rights.
I've debated Stephen Kinsella before and he believes that you voluntarily hand over money to a thief that wants to steal your money. I counter-argued that you might *involuntarily* hand over money, due to the threat of force. There can be no voluntarism when force or threat is involved. He had no capacity to argue for his point and resorted to sophistry instead.
