Regardless, arguments against remote attestation are always very tricky. You're acting like it's morally clear cut but it's not.
RA is designed to stop you lying about what you're running to other people. It doesn't stop you running things, but it may mean others choose not to trade or engage with you based on what you're doing with the computer. So this is a direct translation to standard libertarian philosophy. You can choose your own terms but you can't force your preferred terms on others - you have to negotiate a contract that's mutually acceptable and then that contract needs to be enforced. RA is a kind of technologically enforced contract, instead of relying exclusively on the legal system.
That's why arguments that RA is evil always skip a few steps. The argument goes:
- I want to run X (typically some Linux distro)
- Some service Y won't trade with me unless X will do Z (typically enforcing some sort of agreement e.g. anti-cheat or license).
- X chooses not to do Z but I want Y to service me anyway. So I want to lie to them and feel entitled to being able to do that without being caught. This is moral because Linux.
Often with a helping of "I'm afraid that actually service Y might be most services".
The concerns here are valid - it would suck to no longer be able to use Linux with various remote services - but if you look at how the TPM and related tech are designed there's no actual technical reason you couldn't make Linux satisfy remote attestations. It's simply that Linux users would usually refuse to do so on philosophical grounds. Well, that's fine, but from a political and philosophical perspective it's reasonable for your counterparty to want some assurance that you'll actually implement the agreement you're claiming you will.