The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that f

The freedom to contract is what I described. The prohibitions you bring up violate the freedom to contract. You're making an appeal to legality to claim that freedom to contract doesn't exist, which is an intellectually weak argument. >>Contracts are legal instruments defined and enforced by the government A contract is defined by the parties that sign it. It is an agreement. Agreements between individuals are not defined by the government. In other words, agreements do not exist only by virtue of the govermment willing them to exist. They are private arrangements that we have delegated the enforcement of to govermment. >>Because you are stating that anything other than absolute freedom is central planning. I asked you 'why' because I don't see what's hyperbolic about that. Any rule that supplants free choice with a rule imposed by a central authority is an expansion of the scope of central planning at the expense of personal freedom. This is absolutely undeniable and I don't understand why you're trying to make it out to be a controversial statement. >>Beyond all of this, you started off this thread by saying that you think this will bias the journalists and affect their integrity. You've moved the goalposts multiple times How could you possibly accuse me of that, when I was only answering the questions posed to me? You're not treating me reasonably at all.