Except patents are a government creation. The corporate world rests upon government intervention upon their behalf.

Not by any consistent or sane definition of the term.

Like all political labels the term is abused (as is the term free market - most 'free market' advocates don't advocate anything close to it).

The most commonly accepted definition of libertarianism is political thought founded upon the Non Aggression Principle - that is, it is immoral to initiate aggression against another.

On those grounds, consistent libertarian thought opposes patents and copyright as arbitrarily enforced by an aggressive state. Free software on the other hand is a great example of decentralised, voluntary organisation - the very essence of any libertarian society.

That's not to say that there could not be software licenses - that's possible, but they'd probably be unenforceable.

For some more consistent libertarians who embrace open source/free software and apply it in their own work, try c4ss.org.

Wow, that is the most inaccurate expression of economics I have ever seen, and that's saying something.

Economics is not zero sum, there are unlimited amounts of the most valuable resource - human ingenuity.
True, there's a limited amount of gold, but that doesn't matter, we find ways to use it more efficiently or extract more gold from the ground.
We are told oil will run out, but we will find new ways to use other resources, we will find new ways to extract more oil which is too bothersome to extract now.

And as for suggesting printing money - the Federal Reserve printing money is the cause of so much economic instability. They made the Great Depression worse and longer through their policies (which they now admit). Printing money leads to inflation. That is economic fact.

And please, please, please. There is no such thing as an isolated economy. It is not possible for any country, even the US to supply its own needs fully, we need trade to get those things we need and want. You suggest that the US economy should be isolated. Why not the individual states then? Or perhaps cities? Or individuals, we could all be self-sufficient. Poor and miserable, but non of that evil trade.

Trade makes everyone richer and better off. It gives us all far more opportunities than we can ever imagine. To suggest otherwise is to go against all economics, even Marx knew trade is vital.

We all live in an interconnected world. India provides us with things cheaper than we can ourselves. We provide India with things they cannot provide for themselves. We both benefit. Economic nationalism is petty xenophobia and harms the US more than anyone else. Others benefit from you spending your money protecting jobs so we can have subsidised goods from you. Keep it up, those of us outside the US like you paying us to buy things.