Well, fortunately for you his journal isn't a quasi-governmental entity.
Unfortunately for your argument, our stock markets are. They wouldn't be remotely viable if they weren't supported and regulated by government. In exchange for the tax payer funded assistance is the social benefit of keeping the whole thing running.
Or would you like to test the viability of a market with no government oversight and no government enforcement of contracts?
How would you build a newspaper or magazine without government enforcement of contracts and copyright?
If you want to claim an HFT shop is "quasi-governmental" because contracts are enforced, then basically every enterprise in the world is "quasi-governmental" (except for the black market).
I don't follow your comparison. Shouldn't it be Atlantic :: Joe's HFT Shop and NYSE :: Copyright Office? You do know that HFTs don't work for NYSE, right?
Of course, our markets are subject to many regulations. I don't see how it follows that we need more regulations, specifically banning or taxing HFT. HFT is already taxed, btw. Everyone pay SEC fees in the US on stock sales and stamp tax in the UK. Traders pay income taxes on their trading income. Common sense says, unless there is some clearly demonstrated harm to society from HFT, leave it alone ( subject to existing regulations)
Unfortunately for your argument, our stock markets are. They wouldn't be remotely viable if they weren't supported and regulated by government. In exchange for the tax payer funded assistance is the social benefit of keeping the whole thing running.
Or would you like to test the viability of a market with no government oversight and no government enforcement of contracts?