This argument had direct implications for copyright and patent. A public idea was not a scarce good, as it could be used by an unlimited number of individuals to an unlimited extent and in an unlimited number of places. The very institution of property came about for the purpose of assigning scarce goods to individuals. An idea in my head is my property, because it is part of my brain. But the second I utter it, the next person to hear it also owns the idea, as it is now part of their brain.
Tangible goods are clearly scarce in that there are conflicting uses.
It is this scarcity that gives rise to property rights. All the world s products are modeled after something that came before. From clothing to buildings to, yes, writing, there s always a predecessor. To deny someone the right to improve upon another s creation, manifested in the former s personal property, is to contradictorily support intellectual property rights over real and personal property rights. So no matter what you believe, whatever category you pretend to fit under, you are NOT as much of a libertarian as you say you are if you think that property can be anything other than tangible.