There is no point in arguing against a false representation of someone's view. This is childish and intellectually unhygenic. It's noise.

Snake oil is always legal. It's legal now.

By definition, it's impossible to make all snake oil illegal. Think about all the crypto scams. They count. Even if crypto were outlawed, people will always come up with new "snake oil."

This is off topic. Let's drop it.

I think this is extremely unfair, as in your own pedantry seems fine, where you are correct only for very spesific and us-centric definition of 'force' and 'snakeoil'.

You free market people can't even agree if patents and copyright are part of free market. I had one of you tell me that endentured servitude was part of freedom of contract.

You seem to think we should leave snake oil salesmen alone, so it seems free market includes freedom to defraud the customer. Does it also include freedom to defraud the company?

This 'free market' is a spherical cow and would collapse into anarchy from pissed off people shooting each-other, it's no more viable than communism is.

Assuming good faith keeps discussion here at a high level. Let's not descend to strawmen. If you disagree with javert but do not wish to engage the argument, you do not need to respond.

Without regulation we would have a real hellscape.

It turns out you can't trust "the market" to do the right thing - ever.

Also, frankly, I don't appreciate the sass. It isn't necessary.

That's an easy target to sass, because it's such an easy target. Did I reply to wrong comment or something? Maybe it's because I'm on mobile. Apologies if I replied to the wrong person.

Not really. Why can't companies make "no insider trading" as a condition to employment?

Do you not understand the difference between a rule for employees, and the law?