Because several attempts have already been made to release code that, okay, doesn't steal the project, but destroys the network the project runs on, in favour of a re-designed network. And the XT attempt included code to prevent future hard forks that weren't Hearn approved. And no-one bought the premise that either of those protocol redesigns offered something valuable, and so the fork didn't happen.
And I'll stand by the market making that decision. But you have to stand by the fact that the market could make a different decision in future and that Core's implementation may not always be the consensus. Or admit you're a protectionist apologist. One of the two.
Don't you think it may suit your free-market rhetoric better if I was allowed to choose from a range of options that aren't narrowly defined for the benefit of your argument?
Maybe, but I suspect anyone reading this will have decided for themselves already.
At least the OP is clearly willing to openly profess their protectionist apologist tendencies. You seem to be in denial.
You keep suggesting developers of alternative clients should pursue their own chain because you're terrified of a little competition on this one. I'm suggesting that post fork, all developers are welcome to tag along, follow the longest chain and keep releasing their own clients, that, while compatible with the new consensus, can still propose changes to the rules of the network. Post fork (whether soft or hard), it's not a zero-sum game if dev teams are willing to carry on competing. Free and open. Glorious.
Why would anyone need to compete with Bitcoin on it's own chain if their coin is better?
You're welcome to question why anyone would need to compete with Core on the current chain, but it's not my place to answer. Some people want to and they're entirely free to do so. Are you saying you don't want them having that right? Would you willingly take away their freedom to do it if you could? If so, it doesn't strike me as very liberal of you.