The problem with our discourse I think is that we don't share the same definition for the word "capitalism".

You seem to use it as a place holder for "free market" where all the decissions arise from individuals, while I use the historical meaning including all the free market interference that come with that construct of human society.

The viability and capability of such a hypothetical free market is fascinating topic I may explore in the future. But it is simply not what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing against the free market.

You yourself seem to acknowledge that such a free market does not exist but you seem to attribute the reason for why it doesn't exist soley to the "state" perhapt whithout asking the question how the state got the idea to implement this IP and patent laws in the first place. 

 yeah i don’t believe in differentiation with terms like laissez-faire or free-market capitalism- that is what capitalism fundamentally is to me. 

but it is just an economic lens, and society is also much broader than that. 
i think the state’s size and scale comes from the momentum of the past- this should change. IP/patents are meaningful because of that, and i believe they mostly come about because of the same incentives we’ve both discussed- self-interested individuals can lobby for it. 
if the state is not as powerful, it doesn’t matter if that happens. 

 Well next time I write something you know that when I say capitalism I don't mean free market and that misunderstanding can be completely avoided. :-)