Someone says intellectual property shouldn't exist. We have no idea whether they mean that software patents shouldn't exist, all patents, or even all the various laws and precedent around the not-very-related concepts like copyright, patents (or perhaps just software patents), and trademarks.
You respond with a potential benefit of one domain which is either a subset of the term the OP used, or is orthogonal because the OP was only talking about software patents, or perhaps software patents and copyright, etc.
Now the OP must respond simply to explain what was meant by intellectual property in the first place.
If instead OP had imagined RMS rudely interrupting them to complain that "intellectual property" is a poor term because it brings together many areas of law that are not related, OP would have ended up with a clearer statement with 60% fewer posts here.