Whenever people make claims like "You have no natural right to intellectual property", I'm very curious A) what is the fullest extent of the amount of IP they, as an individual, have worked to create, and B) how secure their living situation and finances are.

I find a lot of people shift their opinion after they've worked for years on something under genuine risk of it not doing well.

The very idea that you can restrict the creativity of another human being is an affront to the human spirit.

Strawman. What I said is that the creator of art has full moral authority over when and how it is consumed, if at all. If you have a private sketchbook in your room right now, are we all entitled to its contents as the common property of the human race simply because it exists?

...artists would laugh in your face if you suggested that a musician had some God-given right to prevent others from singing a song they just wrote.

False equivalency. What you are describing would be a unique performance and a completely new creative expression. A fairer question would be whether some hypothetical historical musician would agree with your suggestion that if they had 10 songs written down in a journal somewhere, that the rest of humanity was entitled to read, or hear them performed at their leisure and demand.

You have no natural right to “intellectual property,” because ultimately what you mean by “intellectual property” is...

Another false equivalency. You are confusing private property and personal property. Intellectual property (which would be a form of private property) does not exist; all ideas which benefit humanity should be shared freely. What we are discussing is the capitalization of intellectual labor, and the moral authority over all labor belongs to the individual who executed said labor. The knowledge required to write a song, or make a clay pot has utility to humanity and should be shared freely. If I use that knowledge to actually MAKE a clay pot you are not entitled to its use simply because you also exist.

It’s a useful legal compromise, nothing more. We discovered through trial and error that providing a limited period of exclusive use of a work to an artist helps get more art made.

I disagree 100%. Copyright should have only ever been used to prevent anyone other than a living creator from profiting off a unique creative work. This is why we have fair-use, and time bound public domain exceptions. Fundamentally I disagree with capitalism and commerce more broadly, but that is outside the scope of this conversation. As long as we are operating under those models, then copyright should protect commercial use of original works until the original creator is dead, then the work should enter the public domain.

One last question looking at you profile: do you have all your woodworking plans available for free online?

Well said. I only take issue with your assertion that it is a useful legal compromise. It being useful is entirely dependent upon who you are.

For someone who partakes in the shared cultural tapestry it could come to be that the legal compromise ends up an oppressive force.

For instance, if you went to clubs in your youth, that music became part of your shared culture. When you are older you will struggle to revisit that same shared culture by those using intellectual property legalities to paywall your soul.