Government grants you a monopoly on an idea, and uses violence to stop other people from infringing on your monopoly. But, usage of these non-scarce resources takes nothing from the originator aside from this monopoly power.
The big questions aren't "should IP even exist as a concept", but instead "how limited IP should be", "what rights IP ownership should give", and "what avenues are available to enforce those rights".
Don't forget, "IP protection" is a really broad concept, and it's more than just patent trolls and DMCA takedowns issued by corporations on content they don't even control: It also includes, for example, the ability to release code under your open source license of choice and then see it enforced through the courts.
Who decided that?
For those who simply want to protest, though, people have been using terms like 'intellectual monopoly' or 'imaginary property' or the like. But that gets you right back to lumping them all together again.
Also, while it's clear that there are different motivations behind Copyright, Patents and Trademarks and it's often important to make a clear distinction between them, I object against them due to the same reason (owning abstract concepts is absurd to the point of insanity), so I do tend to lump them together in a context such as this.
Sane IP legislation is no IP legislation. I don't know why we are still clinging to the ridiculous concept of being able to own abstract concepts. The true insanity is IP in the first place.