I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies.

As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very much like this action by the FTC. You should have read more closely and shouldn't have assumed the opposite.

I have to remind you that your original comment was:

  It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing.

You were not talking about the FTC, you were talking about the state. Furthermore, the parent comment to which you're replying was:

  It's not bad when people are copying you, it signals that California is ahead of the curve on the issue...

which was a reply to

  I suspect this is bad for California

We were all - and especially you - very clearly talking about whether or not it's bad for California. Only later in the conversation did you start to shift your statements to seem as if you're talking about the FTC.

Moving the goalpost fallacy:

  Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other evidence is demanded.

e.g. "It might be bad for California, but not the FTC", "you can't read", "incorrectly inferring", "assuming" etc. Nope, none of those, just sticking to the topic.

Yes, I agree that I was always talking about whether this was good or bad for California. You then provided arguments against non-competes:

> Some of those non-competes were ridiculous with their "in perpetuity throughout the ends of the Universe" type wordplay, I'm surprised governments haven't been more vigilant on things like the stifling of entrepreneurial mobility, since it only helps their economies in the long run to do so.

> Make it possible to disrupt, design economies for entrepreneurs as much as for corporations, and reap the benefits IMO. Let those big evil uglies get disrupted if they can't stay relevant or retain top talent.

My point all along is that "is this a good thing for the FTC to do?" and "is the FTC doing this thing good for California" are separate questions. My initial comment only opined - in the negative direction - on the latter question which is why I have been perpetually confused about you arguing the former question.