Property rights, in the sense that's necessary for capitalism, requires authoritative enforcement to actually work, which in requires government. Both theoretically and empirically. It's not a novel idea at all.
My point is that some property rights can arguably be seen as natural rights, while others definitely cannot be interpreted that way. Copyright is unquestionably not a natural right. It's entirely an artifact of our legal system, and a very recent one at that.
As humans we've always had the concept of "property" to some extent, independent of government. That's not true of copyright law. That was something we invented in response to a specific need, but we invented it at a time when few/no other legal or intellectual tools were available. Copyright should never be treated as the sacred cow that property rights in general are, IMO.
> My point is that some property rights can arguably be seen as natural rights, while others definitely cannot be interpreted that way. Copyright is unquestionably not a natural right.
This "natural rights" talk sounds like theology to me. From an anthropological perspective, humans invented intellectual property around the time it became useful, just as humans invented land ownership around the time that became useful. You can say the same about owning shares of a business or owning currency. These are exactly the artificial property rights you need for capitalism, and you need government for those rights, and hence capitalism, to actually work.
A bone? Sure. Land? Stock in a corporation? These are the property rights capitalism is made of. Entire cultures have existed well into written history without either concept (one of the things that made it easier to forcibly remove them from the land they lived on, which likely means that your "natural law" arguments for land ownership are insufficient to protect the property rights of almost anyone in North America).
What you need for capitalism is centrally enforced rights to things like land and corporate equity. That is not a simple extrapolation for protecting one's personal possessions any more than copyright is. And like copyright, they require a government.
You can own a means of production without government backing, but without establishing laws and implementing a means of enforcing them, there's no guarantee that someone wouldn't come along and take it by force.
I just finished a Law 101 class so I'm by no means an expert, but I think the above explains the theory behind why we need laws. Whether you think the theory is legitimate or not is up to you. When I started the course, I was surprised to learn that our entire legal system was designed around the concept of property rights.
That's... novel.