Local initiatives to improve local economic conditions or equality may palliate the injustice of the plutocratic state, but don't do much good in the long term.

The term "market state", used in the article, understates the injustice. If these states claim to provide "economic opportunity", that's a misleading claim: opportunity for the rich to get richer is the only "economic opportunity" that they care about. If they valued properly functioning markets, they would not keep hands off when banksters rig markets.

The right term for these states is _plutocratic_. They are plutocratic governments of occupation.

It is unfortunate that the article uses the overgeneralization "intellectual property", since that lumps together laws that have almost nothing in common and raise totally different issues.