I don't think that the OP doesn't understand what "intellectual property" is, they just disagree with the assessment that it's necessary (or maybe proper) for the government to grant private monopolies on scientific knowledge.
You need to realize that people can know what IP is and still disagree with you.
Maybe the OP understands what "IP" is, but it seems they do not understand the economics of research or why IP is still applicable to publicly funded research.
If one knows the concept of IP but not why it's needed in these situations, one is still arguing from a position of incomplete understanding.
I understand IP very well, and I disagree with the whole concept.
Here I'm just making a point at how stupid the system actually is. As I stated, the government gets rights to use patents funded by taxpayer money, but the taxpayer has no such rights. The government here is actually nothing but a mediator of funds from taxpayer to researcher, yet it acts as if it paid for the research out of it's own pocket.
You need to realize that people can know what IP is and still disagree with you.