Not everyone is an incompetent loser
I saw posts on reddit yesterday where people were unironically calling Elon a loser. The most successful businessman on the planet who just made himself the right-hand man to the leader of the free world called a loser by predditors. I laughed for 10 minutes straight.
Razorfist was entirely wrong on that, from a libertarian anti-socialist point of view or just plain logic and common sense. His arguments on abolishing IP are fighting against an extreme strawman of eliminating all patents or copyrights which almost nobody believes. The argument is poor even if there's a kernel of truth there (there is necessity and benefit of certain IP laws), though being razorfist he'll never admit that.
No, intellectual property isn't property, or you wouldn't need to define it as such. It's a legal fiction. A protected privilege granted to by government to individuals for a utilitarian purpose of benefiting society. Property is a God given right. If the government can define what is property, they can just as easily define it away. It's all made up, like his fantastical ideas that he thinks are the subject of moral copyright. (something that never existed in the US) He kind of sidesteps that by arguing it's a kind of property in your mind.
???
The only reason we register and protect our property under the law is that we cannot physically occupy and exploit the same space without infringing on someone else's rights. If we could magically occupy the same space then we wouldn't need property. The only way you "infringe on someone's rights" by replicating their ideas is when the law says so. Sure there are benefits to granting that protection, but trying to say a moral copyright exists i.e. there is some kind of imaginary property of the mind is like telling me I can't think the word nigger because you own it. Sorry you can't stop me. N...
Patents are a protection of novel inventions that would be difficult to engineer or come up with in the first prototype, but are easy to replicate. Software isn't that hard to engineer. Let's ignore for the moment that individual software are just recipes and not new inventions. I might be ok with algorithmic patents for a short period. Not 20 years. The fact that it's software and easy for anyone to reproduce means the patent period should be shorter. Game design mechanics are not fundamental algorithms and more of a creative venture. So we could certainly argue the merits of software and game design patents, but not from this false framing of Intellectual Property. Making intellectual property property is the communist position.
That's a funny way to spell hanged for treason.