If "patents are bad for the economy overall" was a basic economic and social concept, it would never have been introduced.
And if was a basic economic and social concept, it would be easy for you to cite them. For instance, the wikipedia article on patents would probably say something like "Patents are clearly bad for the economy - that's why no modern economy uses them.".
Since the status quo is that "patents are good for the economy overall" (since we have them), you need to provide compelling evidence (with emphasis on both compelling and evidence) that society should mobilise to abolish patents because the benefits of an economy without patents clearly outweigh the downsides.
Just stating that patents suck and saying completely unresearched ramblings at the level of "yeah, but it's, like totally obvious" doesn't suffice. You need to demonstrate that you understand why patents were introduced (so you don't make things worse by throwing away something with minor problems that was introduced to avoid bigger problems that you're ignoring) and that your alternative is better.
As it is, you're just repeating the same tired old lines of "patents are bad", "government is bad", and calling for the abolition of a series of laws that are firmly built into the behaviours of the markets without actually bothering to decide whether the markets would be better or worse off without them based entirely on "it's, like, totally obvious dude" level of study.