Not the strongest argument but I'm sympathetic to the direction here.
I think the line of argument would clearer if writer were to argue that rights to physical property have evolved out of traditional practices in English Common Law while right to intellectual property are the result of distinct "monopoly grants" that have happened at one time or another - and that specifically "intellectual property" would better be referred to as "intellectual monopoly" to indicate this distinction.
Another useful argument is that physical objects generally have the inherent property that only a certain number of people can enjoy them - at least at one time. The "objects" of "intellectual property" don't have that quality and the owner and the state together instead must act to artificially impose that property on the "objects".
Comments
Not the strongest argument but I'm sympathetic to the direction here.
I think the line of argument would clearer if writer were to argue that rights to physical property have evolved out of traditional practices in English Common Law while right to intellectual property are the result of distinct "monopoly grants" that have happened at one time or another - and that specifically "intellectual property" would better be referred to as "intellectual monopoly" to indicate this distinction.
Another useful argument is that physical objects generally have the inherent property that only a certain number of people can enjoy them - at least at one time. The "objects" of "intellectual property" don't have that quality and the owner and the state together instead must act to artificially impose that property on the "objects".