A few thoughts in a small space:

1. I prefer ray Kurzweil's view, that IP and non-IP and anti-IP can all simultaneously co-exist. In many cases, they will co-exist in different ratios, over time. Even now, if someone disavows IP, they can put it out under GNU copy-left (non-copyrightable) form or saleable and copyrightable partial form (with copylefted portions remaining open and free). This is, more or less, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" view. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
2. Richard Stallman's view is optimal: that IP can't and shouldn't be enforced, but that wishes regarding copying should be respected, just not enforced by law. (Ostracism is a good means of disincentivizing "free riders" as are truly voluntary agreements/contracts to not "free ride." ...When I say "truly" I don't mean like South Park's "Human-Cent-I-Pad" episode where people are tricked into "agreeing" to unjust contracts). ...We can gradually move toward Stallman's vision.
3. If a benevolent Singularity happens, there may be copyright, but not patents. One pertains to intellectual works in their entirety, the other applies to physical property (software vs. hardware). While it's true that brain configurations would be a combination of hardware and software, and there could be special cases in both domains, creative works would remain IP, because they are inessential to survival, and need not be shared to everyone, where the sharing enhances life, but isn't essential for a high standard of living. In this formulation, IP is voluntary, but edging toward coercive on the spectrum, so that spectrum could gradually phase it out. Physical goods could be decentralized to everyone, via Drexlerian nanotech, and people could differentiate themselves based on their capacity to create optional artworks...

Coercive IP is only needed at approximately human-level intelligence, but it is viewed as essential to protect the works of some artists. (Many artists would be impoverished without it, and IP does act as a disincentive.) So why divide the libertarian movement? Let's resolve this by voluntarily moving towards reduced IP, as we can, without fighting with those who don't wish to.

Ideally, the artists/creators themselves decide whether they wish to retain IP titles to their works, or whether their works have diminished IP, or none at all.

Until then, let's fight to end the DEA, IRS, ATF, EPA, and other coercive monsters, such as the local police: https://fee.org/resources/there-are-no-good-cops/