I never said I was a libertarian. What I explained is rudimentary free market doctrine. My ability to explain Stalinism doesn't automatically make me a Communist, either.

The fact that you can explain a doctrine does not render the criticism of that doctrine incorrect. Indecent attack on critique means that you use all means to defend a flawed doctrine, which implies you is a proponent of that flawed doctrine. The author obviously knows the reality, which stands behind the marvelous "free-market" fiction. He attacks this fiction. He says that self-correcting free-market fails to optimize itself since it kills itself by converging to monopoly.

In the ideal free-market theory, you do not need the anti-monopoly law. But you have to use it in reality to mantain the free-market from collapse. It is clear what author says. He attacks this childish free-market fundamentalism. He makes a right point. You attack him without the reason and defend the flawed ideology, support spreading the wrong beliefs. How can I believe that you is not a libertarian?

An ironically childish and vapid response.