It seems the uphill battle here is a lack of understanding of the nature (defining characteristics) of a monopoly vs. the same for property rights. Pragmatism has little regard for these important distinctions and leads to confusion on these issues. Kudos for your defense of these ideas.

As I said, we do need law that recognizes intellectual property. I am not sure that present law does that well. Present law has many problems. I outlined some of them.
1. Two people can, have, and do simultaneously invent and discover. Both earned the right to the property.
2. US law does, indeed, recognize (some) mathematical theorems and algorithms, (as computer "software" or programs); but does so inconsistently.
3. Not in that essay, but here in other discussions, I pointed out that no other property rights expire. You can pass your home or car to your heirs, but patents and copyrights expire. I know what Ayn Rand said. She did not prove it; she just asserted it.
4. As noted in the opening of the title essay here, US Patent Law _changed_ from "first to invent" to "first to file." I had to point that out in discussions here. Neither you nor Dale ever mentioned it. You both seemed fine with it. SInce then, Dale has back-pedalled. Where do you stand on that?
5. When Samuel Hopkins received the first US Patent for his potash process, you had to _actually have the production method_ (device, machine, process). AFTER 1870 the law changed; and you could get a patent on the _plans_ (algorithm; description) without an actual working model or device. I pointed out in the original essay that US patent law changed in 1870.

You take every question about present US patent law as an assault on all property rights. That is illogical. It shows your emotional commitment to something very close to you.

Privilege is literally "private law": on the manor, the lord dispensed with chattels, including people, without interference. So, you are saying that property rights exist without superior justice. But we lose property by legal acts all the time, from taxation and eminent domain, just for openers. In your home, you do _not_ have the right to dispense justice on your family and chattels without interference. Self-ownership is primary to property, but, again, others acting within the law will take your liberty or take your very life.

We on the libertarian spectrum use the word "monopoly" ambiguously; and you know that. When others complain about corporate "monopolies" we start by asserting that everyone has a "_natural_ monopoly" on their own skills and labor. After some more rhetoric, we grant that the government uses coercive force (or the threat of it) to create _unnatural_ monopolies, for instance in electrical, water, and gas utilities; of course in government agencies such as roads, the Mint, and the post office; doctors, and lawyers, and barbers (via licensing and regulation); and so on.

That last is one of the points contrary to present law. No people can stand in the same place at the same time; land cannot be replicated. Land ownership is a natural monopoly. But two or more people can, have, and do invent or discover the same thing at about the same time. (Einstein's Relativity denied simultaneity.) I believe that any independent inventor has a right to the product of their mind. To grant it to one of them via state coercion is an unnatural monopoly.

[BTW: Why is Robbie's being ignorant - if he is - embarrassing to you? Did you give him a passing grade in Property 101 or something? I realize that you have an interest in this because as a patent attorney, you work within the present system. Therefore, many of your responses are laden with emotions; and they often are energized by barbs, zingers, cuts, and slams. You do not like being knocked from the cat bird's seat. (I did not give you the thumbs down, though I was tempted just for that slight to Robbie.)]