Ah yes, so according to you, in the “real world”, shareholders interests and the interests represented by the government are functionally equivalent. This must be why we have no minimum wage laws, worker protections, nor does the FTC ever block any mergers.
> If you make the false assumption that the public requires 100% support to do anything.
You’re sitting here complaining about not being perfectly understood over and over and yet here you claim I said 100% support is required. I said one group isn’t representative of the other, ie it’s interests are not reflective of the pother groups interests.
> You don't need it to be representative, just to form majority. 51% is more than sufficient. 58% provides a healthy margin.
Assuming 88% of that 58% are in actually in agreement.
> Should it imply it? I don't see the relevance.
You made the argument that the shareholders of one public company are somehow functionally equivalent to the public at large:
> Anti-trust could, in theory, do more to prevent the general public from not caring about the product they control. The problem is that laws (where Figma and Adobe are located) are prescribed by the very same general public, so you have to convince them its a good idea. And if you've done that, the law becomes largely superfluous because at that point they're already on board and will act as such on their own accord.
Your position is basically: we already live in an anarchy capitalist society with extra cruft.