my point is that there is no *market* outcome independent of
Your point is a tautology under any system other than anarchy. The facile
observation that we are not under anarchy does not make inadvisable any
position that can be characterized as "laissez faire".
the DCMA is the law; it is government; it is also part of the
"market." the mistake of assuming that the market is independent of government
is one that was resolved 90 years ago.
Markets can be more or less independent of government, and your strawman
assumption is one to which I decline to subscribe.
You don't actually know what my argument is. Yet you write
as if you did.
I write as if your conclusion is an accurate statement of your position.
Some positions can be recognized as mistaken without having read every
possible mistaken argument for them.
here's the thing: you've got a lot of righteousness raging
through out this. I wonder on what basis.
I don't agree that diagnosing misapplied analogies and linguistic imprecision
necessarily constitutes "raging righteousness".
Is this common with people in your field? Or only people with
Is smuggling assumptions into questions common with people in your field?
Or only with people who don't have answers to their interlocutor's arguments?