Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard this argument before, but you are making a rather big claim when doing so. If all property rights is government granted monopolies, you are then saying that the government is the owner of all and everyone’s property. That mean you don't own that car. Its the government car that they have given to you under a granted permission to use it. Same goes for your house. All they need to render the third amendme…
The government doesn't own it, but it enforces the right that you own it. Both for physical goods in the obvious way, and IP via the way of copyright.
The same goes for any other form of permissions. If I get a government permission to sell drugs or produce weapons, I would not call that a property right, comparable to the car I own. The permission to enter a house is not comparable to the property right of the person who owns the house.
If we look at copyright specific, it is an intrusion into the property right of others. Its not just a permissions, but also a restrictions of the actually property owners rights. By calling copyright a property equal to physical objects, we are making the term property meaningless to the point of contradiction.