You: "a contract is information. IP is information. therefore any argument used against IP can be used against contracts."
What kind of logical fallacy is this?
Contracts and IP, though having a common property of being "informational" or abstract, are none the less different things. A contract is agreed upon by consenting parties. IP is not.
I've already responded to this: have you made an agreement with every person in the world that they should not kill you? Of course not. Then according to your logic that a contract is needed why shouldn't anyone be who hasn't signed a contract not to kill you not be allowed to do so? Why is there a default value that you never consented to which says: "unless anything else is stated I don't want to die, and killing me is a gross violation" ? And why does that default value not apply to IP: "unless anything else is stated I don't want my intellectual creation to be distributed without my consent, and doing so is piracy" ?