> 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.
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.