It's not easy, and trying to create property artificially is hardly 'barbaric', even though it has its drawbacks (unfortunately, so do all the other solutions).
It is barbaric to think that if you think of something and create something based on it, then you can attack someone (whether directly or via the government is beside the point) and take their property if they think of and create it too. It's simply barbaric. There's no possible rational/moral justification here.
Now, you may not see the barbarism clearly or at all. But that merely explains why you don't why calling it barbarism.
There is some rational justification explained in detail in the link I posted: creating artificial property is one way of confronting the underprovisioning of public goods. It's imperfect, but so are all the other ways, and so is simply letting them be underprovisioned.
Calling people barbaric for disagreeing with you is not really ok in this community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
It's not easy, and trying to create property artificially is hardly 'barbaric', even though it has its drawbacks (unfortunately, so do all the other solutions).