You just summed up the big strawman that I keep hearing on the anti-IP side. It essentially boils down to "But...THE STATE"
Neither Rothbard, Wenzel or I'd imagine any other serious anarcho-libertarian types that favor IP also believe the State should be the enforcer of the IP. As you point out, Rothbard advocates a stateless society, so how could he support a State IP monopoly?
This is a completely different argument from the very legitimate debate over whether "intellectual property" is even a legitimate concept. If it IS...then there can be no doubt that as "property", one would be entitled to use enforcement of some kind to defend or reclaim their property.
In today's case, the State is monopoly enforcer. If my house is broken into and my TV is stolen I will report that to the police and get a police report so that I can file an insurance claim and so that if the TV is found it can be returned to me.
In no way does this imply that I support the State any more than when I drive to work in my State-registered vehicle on a State built road.
Property rights - however they may be defined- due not suddenly disappear or become illegitimate simply because the State has claimed itself monopoly enforcer of property rights.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: