[michaelmrose]

This is easier than you think. If more people are apt to be disadvantaged by your actions than not why shouldn't they simply vote your rights away?

As a business person in any industry this is already true in 1000 mostly reasonable ways that mostly derive from outrageous behavior of prior actors in your space. In that context it seems ridiculous to argue against 1001 on principle unless the specific regulation is itself ill advised. The only justification it needs is for it to be a net positive.

Basically why do 338 million people give a fuck if a handful of people want to do user hostile things. Do them somewhere else.

[forgottenlogin9]

You are advocating for “mob rule”. History is replete with examples of this being a bad idea.

[michaelmrose]

mob rule /ˌmäb ˈro͞ol/ noun noun: mob rule

    control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.

I'm advocating for regulating industry for the greater benefit of the overwhelming majority of society as is already practiced in every developed nation on earth. You already can't build a house or sell a sandwich without following half a hundred regulations which are written in the ashes if a million poor fuckers who were maimed, killed, or fucked prior to yourself. If you exist in the modern business landscape you have internalized this and accepted it as the cost of doing business. Nobody gives every a little fuck if for instance you think your sandwich shop doesn't need health inspections or your workers don't need food handlers cards or if you would like to sell houses that don't meet building codes.

If we mutually understand that is literally how the world works everywhere then going back and pretending that society needs to justify "taking away Elon's rights to sell consumer hostile cars" then we are being intellectually dishonest. The same way you are being intellectually dishonest by denigrating simple democracy as "mob rule".