Your implicit assertions about the proposals of the "free culture" crowd are false; your terminology raises unnecessary confusion; and your economic analysis is incoherent.
You're confused about what the "free culture" crowd advocates. Let's restrict this discussion just to copyright. Lessig does not advocate the abolition of copyright (and neither do I). He advocates reasonable limitations on its scope, and that copyright owners should consider when they do and do not permit others to use their works without payment, rather than always requiring payment.
There's very little that can be said coherently about "intellectual property" in general; trademarks, trade secret protection, and copyright, to name just a few, are very, very different. Maybe you can say this: "Intellectual property" laws turn the ideas and tools needed to carry out intellectual work into property, where they weren't before. They also turn some of the results of that intellectual work into property.
This is a good deal for investors in intellectual ventures; if their employees can't quit and start a competing company, the company can charge its customers a higher price, and the employees can't demand higher wages. If intellectual ventures need investors, maybe that's worth the cost.
But many creative people (God, I hate the word "creatives") and intellectuals have pursued their art as a profession in the absence of any "intellectual property", and often in the absence of investors. Lawyers, doctors, professors, judges, consultants, investment managers, schoolteachers, stage actors, many engineers, scientists, and symphony musicians all perform intellectual work as a profession without any "intellectual property". Even the majority of programmers write software for which copyright licenses are never sold --- either because it's only used inside of one company, or because it's free software. So your implicit assertion that eliminating intellectual property would leave "creatives" and intellectuals bereft of the ability to make a profession of their interests is false, and historically and economically illiterate. Your name-calling ("quite literally ... retarded") and explicit appeals to hatred ("you're putting it into the hands of the very people many in this crowd hate") do not rescue your point from being a falsehood, completely out of touch with reality.
You're confused about what the "free culture" crowd advocates. Let's restrict this discussion just to copyright. Lessig does not advocate the abolition of copyright (and neither do I). He advocates reasonable limitations on its scope, and that copyright owners should consider when they do and do not permit others to use their works without payment, rather than always requiring payment.
There's very little that can be said coherently about "intellectual property" in general; trademarks, trade secret protection, and copyright, to name just a few, are very, very different. Maybe you can say this: "Intellectual property" laws turn the ideas and tools needed to carry out intellectual work into property, where they weren't before. They also turn some of the results of that intellectual work into property.
This is a good deal for investors in intellectual ventures; if their employees can't quit and start a competing company, the company can charge its customers a higher price, and the employees can't demand higher wages. If intellectual ventures need investors, maybe that's worth the cost.
But many creative people (God, I hate the word "creatives") and intellectuals have pursued their art as a profession in the absence of any "intellectual property", and often in the absence of investors. Lawyers, doctors, professors, judges, consultants, investment managers, schoolteachers, stage actors, many engineers, scientists, and symphony musicians all perform intellectual work as a profession without any "intellectual property". Even the majority of programmers write software for which copyright licenses are never sold --- either because it's only used inside of one company, or because it's free software. So your implicit assertion that eliminating intellectual property would leave "creatives" and intellectuals bereft of the ability to make a profession of their interests is false, and historically and economically illiterate. Your name-calling ("quite literally ... retarded") and explicit appeals to hatred ("you're putting it into the hands of the very people many in this crowd hate") do not rescue your point from being a falsehood, completely out of touch with reality.