how are you going to resolve the fact that IP is the state granting of privilege which creates an obligation on those being excluded as the social commons (which no individual creates via their labor) is privately enclosed that violates the excluded's absolute right to self-ownership? (this is not my argument but rather Stephan Kinsella's)
Quite simply, and without government, in the form of contract law. It's like the GPL, whenever you download code under GPL, you agree to a contract that will binds you to the terms of GPL, and also binds you to a contract stating no other person can look at or copy your version of the code without also agreeing to GPL. Therefore it is the responsibility of the downloader of the code to enforce those terms or limit who sees or has access to his version of the code.
If I have a painting which I don't want copied, I would bind people that I show or give the painting to a contract which states the following:
1. You recognize that I am the original creator.
2. Before showing this painting or giving this painting to anybody else, you must first bind them to this same contract.
3. If any violation of this contract occurs, all parties who are signed to this contract are responsible for $X in reperations to me, the artist. The signers of the contract shall collectively pay the reperations, such that the cost is evenly distributed among the possible violators of this contract.
4. If it can be reasonably proved that a contract signer did not violate the contract, they are not liable to pay reparations, and the number of possible violators of the contract does not include them. If it cannot be proved that a contract signer did not violate the contract, they are still liable to pay reperations, regardless of whether the original violation came from them or not.
5. I the artist agree to sign this contract as a party to the IP.
Now, if I show this painting to 9 people and the reperations are set at, say, $25,000, those people have a vested interested in both maintaining the contract and keeping proof that they are in the clear. Even if I decide that I'm going to get all sneaky and try to fleece their money, and I manage to prove to a 3rd party arbitrator that I am in the clear, I only get 90% of the amount, and lose 10% of the amount that all parties involved agreed was a reasonable amount of reparations. Not only that, but if one of the parties has clear proof that a violation occured, they have a vested interest to point it out, to avoid having to pay the $2500. If through this method, 1000 people are shown the work and sign the contract, and there is a violation, then their will be 1000 people determined to prove their innocence, and the best way to do this is to prove the guilt of another person. It's the same thing with IP today...you don't have to prove you had the idea first, only that the original party didn't do enough to protect the idea.
-add-
Thomas Jefferson's original solution was to LIMIT the time (14 years) for the coercion - in other words to make intellectual property CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE else we will have to make the right of self-ownership CONDITIONAL not ABSOLUTE...
I personally think that artists will want to maintain some level of the contract for a very long period of time, to ensure they are recognized as the original creator of the work. I don't really have a problem with limits either, or public domain, and think that with the contract above, not many people would even agree to look at the work. If you declare that so long as 1,000,000 people are party to the contract, the reparations are void under most circumstances, e.g. that the contract creator can audit some aspect of the painting with reasonable suspicion of violation coming from you to determine if you are in fact protecting the IP, and if you fail the audit, you must pay $X fines. Another condition is that perhaps the strict contract need only be held for X years...long enough time for history to note the real creator and for you to earn your daily bread.
-add-