As for the parasite claim, well, I don’t get it. First, I’m not a defense attorney but an academic and last I checked my salary was was not a function of the level of antitrust activity. Second, you should note both that making an argument for abolition would be a much more extreme position than my current one — and unless I’m missing something — provocative positions like don’t appear to harm academic standing (much less employment). Third, you might note that I’ve said that the strongest case against antitrust is in the area where I do most of my own research (monopolization and vertical restraints). So, I’m not quite sure what the alleged ulterior benefit of my position is, exactly. In any event, thanks for the comment.

A more nuanced stance obviously has the benefit of keeping parasites like Professor Wright gainfully employed. The case for abolition (or, more accurately, the case for free markets) has the benefit of being true.