[a-priori]

Assuming we're talking about the Hobbesian "state of nature" then yes, of course you do have that freedom. Along with every other freedom.

But you only have a right to profit insofar as you can keep others from exercising their freedom to steal your ideas (or anything else).

[foobarbazqux]

If I have a natural right to profit from my ideas, isn't it reasonable that I might want a legal right?

[a-priori]

In a state of nature, there is no such thing as a "legal right", or law of any kind other than might-makes-right.

[foobarbazqux]

But legal rights are synonymous with might-makes-right. A natural or human right is something we would like to have but cannot guarantee until it is made into law. I am just asking whether laws about intellectual property correlate to natural rights in the same way that laws about physical property do, since the original claim was that they are 100% fabricated.

[a-priori]

Whether they're synonymous is entirely a matter of your world view with respect to the origin of the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force, which is the defining feature of a state. Do individuals delegate their right to the use of force to the state, in the process giving them a monopoly on it? Or do states impose said monopoly on the individual, in effect overriding their natural rights? To avoid committing a fallacy here: or is there a third option?

[foobarbazqux]

The fallacy is that the choice is presented as either/or instead of both/and. Some of my natural rights are embodied in law, some of them aren't, that's how it goes.