The OP may apply to the arguments of Kinsella and others, which is why universal ethical commandments are not useful except perhaps as rhetoric.
I have advocated against IP only in the sense that I have tried to show that the traditional libertarian property rights arguments have not been coherently applied to IP. My points in those debates neither accept nor reject the notion of libertarian property rights. Rather, they constitute a line of reasoning that says, “Your reasons for supporting IP are incoherent. There may be other reasons why IP is a good idea, but none of the ones that are typically discussed fall into that category, so I remain highly skeptical.”