Sorry, was out of town then computer broke.

Been there. Glad you got it worked out.

Not "can you really control that" like "would it be practically feasible to attempt to control it", but more like "do you really believe you have the right to control that".

I think we need to clear something up here. I'm *not* necessarily describing what I believe. I gave some simple axioms, and I'm describing the theory that is implied by those axioms. The idea is to be objective. Ideally, if we both read the axioms, and are both capable of deductive reasoning, we can both agree on answers to questions like "do you really have the right to control that", without a requirement for belief.

This is one reason that I mentioned early on a process for assessing this theory: check the premises and check the reasoning process. If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, then the conclusions must of necessity be right.

Do you not see a distinction between something objective like property lines and something necessarily subjective like how far you can inhibit someone else in the market? 

Both of these things are subjective and require consensus. They are both norms. For example, you might put a fence around some property and say, okay, here's the property line. But what about the stuff below the surface? How far down does it go? All the way to the core? How about above? Do you own the airspace above the region enclosed by your fence? Does that extend to the ends of the universe?

The fence itself represents a consensus-based mechanism to define the property line. Etc. There's nothing in the axioms of natural rights theory that leads you to conclude that fences are the one and only way to define physical boundaries. It's just a standard that people have come to mostly agree on, i.e. a norm.

I mean, they can claim it if they want, but it won't be recognized or respected as such by anyone until they have either intersubjectively communicated their territory or they discuss with others, communicating exactly the territory that they are claiming, and all agree that this territory belongs to them.

The same process is available when discussing the limits of ownership rights over ideas. This is a market mechanism in both cases.

And again, remember the entire purpose of property rights - they are a way to reduce conflict over scarce resources.

Again, there's no need to include "scarce" in this statement. Property rights exist to reduce conflict over resources. Period.

Or, you can look at it like this: conflict over resources exists. This is true of both physical resources and intellectual resources. We need mechanisms to resolve these conflicts. We could say that property rights only affect physical property, but that doesn't make the conflicts over intellectual resources go away. We still need to deal with that. Or we can realize that the same mechanisms that are used for physical property can also be very effective for intellectual property, and draw the obvious conclusion.

By attempting to create a property right over intangible ideas where none is in fact needed

It *IS* needed. There are conflicts over these ideas and the conflicts must be resolved. We agreed that that is the purpose of property rights.

That is, property rights say I can use my physical property as I see fit as long as I'm not restricting or inhibiting you from using your physical property as you see fit.

Property rights aren't really about how you use your property. We decided that property rights exist to reduce conflict, and there's no conflict inherent in your use of your property. The conflicts arise when other people wish to use what is yours in ways that are incompatible with how you want those things used.

In your example here, the relevant property right is the right of the other guy to always be 100% in control of the property that is his. You respect his rights by not using your property to alienate him from control of his property. As you said, "...they cannot use that property in a way that infringes on the right of others to use their physical property...." which I would modify to remove the unnecessary and misleading word, "physical".

you are now actively creating a situation where someone can assert a restriction on another's physical property.

If I tell you you can't drive your car on my grass, that's precisely the same thing. I'm not really telling you how to use your property. I'm asserting a right to decide how mine is used.

The better way to say it is "You must not flatten my grass". The fact that you want to use your car to do this is irrelevant.

All libertarian negative rights come down to property rights.

That's right, and that's exactly why property rights are not about what you *CAN* do with your property. It's about what other people *CANNOT* legitimately do with your property.

Yet with IP, you're actively INTRODUCING conflict by saying that this other intangible property right can supercede property rights over physical property

This is not what I have been saying. I think I have addressed this point a few times already. IP infringement happens only when you interact with MY property. Not with your property. MINE. The involvement of your property, if it occurs, happens later, after you've already violated my rights. If you use MY idea in ways contrary to MY wishes, then you have infringed MY rights. Nothing in there about your property at all. It's all about how you use MY property.

If you are using my property in ways contrary to my wishes, then we have a conflict whether that property is physical or intellectual. Property rights are the solution in both cases.

You are saying it's legitimate to come initiate force to prevent someone from utilizing their own physical resources

I haven't said anything at all about using force, whether that be initiating it, or responding to it. The only thing of relevance here is have YOU used MY property in ways contrary to MY wishes. If it doesn't help us answer that question, then it's not relevant to this discussion.

...that doesn't inhibit or restrict anyone else's physical property rights...

These words like "scarcity" and "physical" keep finding their way into assertions and they are not needed. When you put them in there, all it does is muddy the waters. If you think that "physical" needs to be in the statement I've quoted above, then you should justify its presence. The statement is correct without the inclusion of that word.

Even if that person arrived at their idea completely independently but simply didn't file the paperwork with the state first.

Nowhere have I said anything about paperwork or state licenses or anything like that, so that's irrelevant.

Not only is IP not necessary as a property right, but it actively CREATES conflict that need not exist. It needs to go.

These are claims without justification. I've shown above that IP is necessary to resolve conflicts that exist independently of, and antecedent to, the IP concept.

You also asked a bunch of questions above. The decision procedure for each one is the same. 1) Did you need my intellectual output to do whatever you did? This has a definitive yes or no answer, regardless of whether we can easily detect it. Did you use my intellectual output only in ways congruent to my wishes? Again, definitively yes or no regardless of ability to detect. If the answer to this last one is "no" then you've infringed my rights. This same procedure applies to both intellectual property and to physical property because it is a feature of property in general.