Where in all that is the answer to the question “What authorizes Congress to dictate the terms of those agreements?” You seem to subscribe to the idea that regulatory authority is self-evident - they can because they do, and that’s as far as the thought process needs to go.
>> Where in all that is the answer to the question “What authorizes Congress to dictate the terms of those agreements?” <<
Here: “Because the federal government DOES regulate the very existence of the cable industry, what is provided by the cable industry is an action of the government, not of the free market.”
>> You seem to subscribe to the idea that regulatory authority is self-evident - they can because they do, and that’s as far as the thought process needs to go. <<
You seem to subscribe that because regulatory authority is illegitimate, then the forces of good also have lay down to the abject subjugation to the forces of evil within the regulatory at all times.
I’m all for Paul trying to liberate the cable industry. But because government’s assumption of authority isn’t valid doesn’t mean that government is automatically absolved of all responsibility held by that authority, nor does it mean that all who reject the validity of the assumption of authority are compelled to likewise concede to evil at all turns.
In an analogy: Suppose I am a divorced parent. I might argue that under the law, my wife should not have been granted custody of my children. Fine. Does that mean that I also have to defend her against charges of neglect when the children have malnutrition, because the law states that she should not be the responsible person? Of course not! If the law were better applied, she wouldn’t have the responsibility, but as the law is applied, she has that responsibility, and I am obliged to do everything I can to make sure that the responsibility is fulfilled, even if the law says it’s not my responsibility.