It's actually not easier to eliminate intellectual property altogether. IP laws haven't been enforceable for years, but so far that's resulted in revenues declining across certain industries rather than going away completely. Think of all the change in the past 15 years the entertainment industry has faced and imagine how much bigger in magnitude--and how utterly sudden and catastrophic--immediate IP repeal would end up being.
I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad idea, I'm saying whether it's easy or not. There's a difference between "creative destruction which will end up good in the long run" and "easy"--in fact, they're nearly exact opposites. Just look at the fallout from this last recession for an example.
(On a side note, capitalism is defined by the legal enforcement of property rights. Abolishing intellectual property is probably the exact opposite of capitalism. The word you're looking for is "market".)
Ah, this is a longer discussion than I'd like to have at the moment, but you're still assuming that IP is actually 'property.' It's not, at least in my mind.
You're still right though: market would be a better fit. Markets and capitalism are pretty much interchangeable in my mind, which is why I made the slip.
Property rights, as far as capitalism is concerned, are an artifact of law, not some fundamental philosophical truth. For capitalism to exist in a given domain, the government has to enforce property rights in that domain. That includes everything from cap-and-trade (where there are property rights to air emissions), water rights, real estate, equity in businesses, and yes, even copyrights and patents. Whether any of this actually constitutes "property" in a philosophical sense is an especially worthless genre of philosophical argument.
really, so you would be totally OK if someone copied your article and slapped their name on it, or took your fictional characters and wrote some stories where they are made to be the scum of the earth?
