[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I would agree that land rights hold a similar position to IP - i.e. they are recognition of rights which don't really "exist" except but we "agree" to observe for pragmatic reasons.

I would say that land rights 'exist' just as much as the right to life, so depending upon what you mean by 'exist', they are all equally real or equally fictional. Rights arent physical entities in the world; they are highly abstract concepts which are used to implement moral positions within a political framework.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, why isnt the 'right to life' a fictional construct which we only observe for pragmatic reasons - namely that the majority are too weak to fight the strong and hence create a passive 'rights-based' framework to protect themselves, and to allow coexistence within peaceful society? Hasnt this been argued for centuries, from Thrasymachus (in the Republic) down to Nietzsche?

All a patent / copyright does is mean the state agrees to restrict the liberty of others. In practical terms the enforcement may vary but it seems too fundamentally be similar to a law banning certain types of speech / goods.

This is begging the question. Your liberty is only being restricted if you believe you have an inherent right to use the intellectual products of others without their permission. Again, you might as well claim that the 'right to life' infringes upon your liberty because you arent allowed to kill people who annoy you.