> I did not misrepresent you. You made two claims and I objected to the second.
I made a single claim with two parts:
1. the value that they provide is tremendous
2. you are not forced to use them
And then my conclusion was: these make them non-rent-seeking by definition.
You intentionally rewrote my argument to change its meaning, you know that you are, and you're continuing to lie about it.
I don't need to argue with you further - I've pointed out that you're fundamentally dishonest to other readers, and that's all I need to do from here on.
I made a single claim with two parts:
1. the value that they provide is tremendous
2. you are not forced to use them
And then my conclusion was: these make them non-rent-seeking by definition.
You intentionally rewrote my argument to change its meaning, you know that you are, and you're continuing to lie about it.
I don't need to argue with you further - I've pointed out that you're fundamentally dishonest to other readers, and that's all I need to do from here on.