Ok, but that still doesn't explain how they were using this as a basis to broadly challenge the notion of regulation in and of itself. This is a system they bought into--anyone with basic common sense understands that if you opt into a regulated system that the terms of the regulation are subject to change. I work in pharmaceutical advertising, a highly regulated industry. If the FDA narrows the scope of advertising the pharma companies don't get to say, "Regulation is theft" decades after having agreed to participate.

Let us not forget that the regulation has been changed MANY times, over MANY years, and almost uniformly to the benefit of the landlord lobby up until this point. THAT was OK by them, right? But it went the other way this time and suddenly "regulation is illegal!"