If I were to break down Intellectual Property into the few issues that are interesting and relevant, I'd number them this way.
1. What facts of nature give rise to property rights? Can we analogize to IP rights? I think this one is an obvious no. Property rights arise substantially because physical property is rivalrous (If I take your axe, you can't use it). IP very simply isn't.
2. Does IP have good effects? It has good effects on the profits of Disney, and of IP lawyers. I see no other positives. Under the simple, and obviously true equation: Wealth = accumulated growth, growth = innovation, innovation = ideas having sex, IP law as we have it now SHOULD have massive wealth-destroying effects, as it squelches innovation. It's like, if someone had a patent on Peanut Butter, and Someone else had a patent on Chocolate, reese's would be royally screwed...even though 90% of the value of reese's comes from the mix. It is likely possible to both encourage idea-formation financially, AND to allow idea-mixing.
3. What does the normal patent law situation look like? Is it more like the case of Alexander Graham Bell, who raced to the patent office 1 hour before Elisha Grey who had independently invented the same thing, and where the government created an artificial monopoly against other folks who had independently discovered the same thing or more like the case of Google buying Motorola PURELY for their patent thicket, so as to countersue the shit out of Microsoft and Apple who are trying to prevent innovation...or more like rules carefully built to prevent HP from taking apart Canon's copiers, in order to see how they work and duplicate them...or more like Microsoft/SCO who sues the crap out of anyone doing anything whatsoever in operating systems, so as to preserve their market dominance.
4. What is the normal copyright law situation look like? Disney harassing an independent cartoonist for drawing a mouse? Or the independent cartoonist preventing Disney from stealing the idea?
5. What is the normal law situation? Does law tend to protect the weak better than the strong, or the strong better than the weak?
On 5 counts, I think it's pretty blatant that IP law is a Deeply bad idea.
Note: I did not discuss trademarks. I did not discuss the hideous FDA drug/biomed IP law stuff that results from even worse other FDA regulations.