"In fact, all factors of production should be regulated to the greatest benefit of society. I certainly hope you agree, comrade."
LOL!!! Radio Spectrum is a "common resource" pretending that it isn't is nonsensical. It IS regulated solely by the FCC - you don't have to like it - but it's the way it is. Moral or not, that's the way it is.
And until the great libertarian revolution that overthrows all government/laws deemed immoral by the amorphous libertarian blob, that's the way it's going to be.
If you use a cellphone jammer, get caught, you'll be punished for it. That's the law, whether you think it immoral or not.
As an RF engineer you are quite aware that low power rf transmitters, working on the cell phone base tower frequencies can easily be directed and detected....they would call someone like you to "tune" the system. I think you're being disingenuous.
The surest sign that you can't make a good argument, is that you pre-emptively call anyone who disagrees "nonsensical". In fact a cogent disagreement can be made, and I've already given the highlights. Here's an explanation for you, however.
When you say that RF spectrum is a "common resource", I assume that you mean it's a public good. That's the only meaningful interpretation I can put on your words, since otherwise you are merely stating the tautology that RF spectrum is government controlled, which has nothing to do with the question whether it should be government controlled.
In case you don't know what a public good is, it's defined as a good which is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The first term means that there's no way to prevent "free loaders" from making use of the good. The second term means that these "free loaders" impose no extra costs. Economists generally agree that RF spectrum is a public good in this sense. First, the energy goes everywhere, so I can't stop anyone from sticking up an antenna and capturing it. Second, since the energy goes everywhere, sticking up another antenna costs the broadcaster nothing.
If we agree with economists generally, then RF spectrum is a public good. Does it therefore follow that it must be government-controlled? Samuelson thought so; that's why he called them public goods. However, that needs to be proven. Why must such goods by government-controlled?
However, the fact is that RF communication doesn't fit the definition in the first place. Specifically, it fails the test of non-excludability. Encrypted satellite signals prove this: it's perfectly straightforward to exclude freeloaders from using our RF. QED.
While the previous argument is conclusive, it's worth pointing out that there are still further objections. The assumption underlying non-rivalrousness is that, since it costs nothing extra to let the freeloaders in, therefore it is morally incumbent on us to go ahead and let them in. It's elementary to observe that this is a deeply flawed assumption. Consider the movie theater we've been talking about. Once the movie starts, if there are empty seats, it costs the theater owner nothing to let people sit in those seats for free. The movie is being shown, and it costs the same whether those seats are empty or full. By the public-goods argument, the theater owner is morally obligated to let people in free after the movie starts.
you don't have to like it - but it's the way it is. Moral or not, that's the way it is.
I do find it interesting that all moral relativists sooner or later fall back on the argument that might makes right.