@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I'll match the paragraphs with replies in order:

I feel I must apologize for expressing my observations without the approval of the one and only god, the poll, and its prophet the survey.

Consider the overall meaning expressed, rather than chasing after "well-defined" terms. Words are best effort.

Human nature did not change for the duration of said history, that is the meaning of the word "human". We do not call every living being form a single cell organisms to large communities of individuals human. IP law in it's entire complexity is not natural, it is based on a natural tendency that is trivial to observe.

I'm sure you personally are most exceptional... and pedantic.

I don't know what decisions you are referring to. Experts most definitely need to make many decisions to be useful to the society. I was trying to explain how even the experts whose profession is directly affected (and who are against IP) disagree.

I did not present any such dichotomy. I did not mention speed or time or a difference in the end goal.

The analogy was meant to explain the difference in the approach, not model a government or a legal system. The community is programmers/writers/painters/musicians, the laws are licenses on their works, and the book is copyright law. There is a certain reductions of dimensions to simplify the picture, as that was the whole point of the analogy.