Molyneux’s response in opposing IP was to point out that the average person is not willing or even able to copy a bicycle, while copying a digital song file is easy. I countered, saying that some people do build bicycle factories, to which Molyneux replied that a person would never do that, wanting only a single bicycle for himself.
Is this an argument? Evidently Molyneux was suggesting that if an act is convenient enough, it cannot be a property violation. This is nothing resembling an argument from first principles. If something is practical, does this make it right?
Once upon a time, before the invention of weapons, it was extremely difficult for a smaller, weaker man to kill a larger, stronger man. The advent of firearms changed that. With a gun and a tiny amount of physical effort, it is possible to kill another person in a fraction of a second. Guns made self-defense more practical, and made murder more practical also. Did this make murder right?
Murder is wrong, and the practicality of accomplishing the act has nothing to do with it. Murder is wrong because it is the initiation of force, which can be understood as violating the property rights that the victim has in his own body.
A better, more praxeological handling of Molyneux’s example would be like this:
A person who wants to ride a bike will not bother to build a bicycle factory, just as a person who wants to listen to a song will not bother to compose and record one. Instead, the honest person will buy a bike or song copy on the market. A dishonest person may attempt to obtain their goods by violating the property rights of another, stealing a bike, or breaking into the bike factory, or copying the song.