work in progress
Arbitrary & Reactionary
When a debate proceeds unproductively, with both sides talking past eachother, this is typically a sign that the argument itself may be a fallacy or strawman. The primary fallacy is the conflation between the concept if (a) owing intangibles and (b) Intellectual Property as defined by governments (GDIP).
Similarly to how massive and arbitrary land grants were given to wealth and connected upper class individuals, and used to support and perpetuate serfdom, many early anarchists were against physical property rights all together. The United States has historically had better (less flawed) property rights legal code compared to Europe, and as such it's of little surprise that Anarcho-Capitalism is far more common within the United States, compared to all of Europe.
Consider the possibility that current AnCap stance is a reaction to the extremest nature of government enforcement, as well as the poor definition, and favoritism to large corporation. Consider perhaps the opposition, is not opposition to the concept that one may own intangible entities itself, but rather to the government entities who pursue selfish-interests under the guise (scapegoat) of IP. The problem isn't property (or IP) itself, the problem is government, favoritism, poor definition, theft, and cruel/unjust enforcement.
Flag on the Beach
Imagine the explorer who sails to a foreign land, and upon arriving, plants a flag on the beach and loudly proclaims "I claim this land in the name of King George!" Then imagine the Anarchist who comes along, looks at this, and concludes that property rights are evil. You and I understand that such a claim is actually a violation of property rights. Similarly categorical I.P. claims could be compared to that "flag on the beach" scenario, and would be a violation of the I.P. of others. The validity of others freedom to pursue and ownership of their own I.P. which suggests categorical I.P. clams are in fact a violation of I.P.
- add "headline propaganda" section