Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

In any case—I don't care for cancel culture myself, but I wouldn't risk the far more fundamental freedom of association over it. Social ostracism ("cancelling") is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort. People need to be shown that there are better ways to resolve disagreements and react to objectionable behavior, past or present, which don't involve rejecting the entire person and all the good things that they've done.

Yes.

However, non-government economical powers are subject to laws created by the government.

Anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly laws in particular were created to address problems where non-government economical powers become too powerful. These laws fall under the Commerce Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause) of the US Constitution.

The law doesn't guarantee that people will be prosperous or happy, only that they will be free from an overly tyrannical government.

If a US citizen feels that a non-government economical power is too powerful, they should work with their elected representatives to make laws to restrain those overly powerful non-government economical powers.

Yes, it's a problem when it's to the point of completely disassociating from you given the opportunity to do so, and the comment was made outside of work, in a completely different forum, and not to them or about them. They're not willing to engage with you and try to change your mind, or even just to continue working with you (without being forced). They're jumping straight to outright ostracism, or as close to it as they can manage. And anyone who doesn't do the same is next in line—guilt by association is a big part of cancel culture. Often it's not about what you did but rather about your failure to publicly condemn and "cancel" someone else for what they did (or perhaps only have been accused of doing).

I'm not saying they should just ignore whatever specific thing it was that gave offense, though sometimes that is the right approach in a professional context. Choosing to working together while ignoring irreconcilable differences is sub-optimal but better than not associating at all. That, however, is something that people should choose for themselves, not something they should be forced into.

> Implicit in this is the claim that people don't already do this.

I'm sure some people do, and if they don't feel that they can continue to associate with someone based on what they've personally done then I support their choice. In the vast majority of cases, however, a more measured response is warranted which doesn't involve burning all bridges and driving the offending party into the outer fringes of society where they are likely to encounter others who were similarly exiled and become ever more entrenched in their positions.

Also, doesn't it just make sense that the employees of a corporation, the ones doing the work, might have at least as good of, if not a much better idea of, the direction the company should take on certain issues, as compared to the shareholders?

The employees may be "the ones doing the work" but capital investment is key to allowing them to do that work productively. The shareholders provide that capital, which (formally or informally—they're not obligated to provide it in the first place if they don't like the terms) means that they get to decide how it's used. The board is their agent in making these decisions. If they're smart they'll pay attention to what the employees recommend within their area of expertise—but then again "individual contributors" are often more or less ignorant of, or at least less focused on, certain aspects of running a profitable business which are nonetheless essential to remaining in business. To pick one obvious example: If your engineers create something very impressive from a technical point of view, but there isn't a large enough market willing to pay what it would cost to manufacture, then the product will fail. If that happens, the engineers are salaried employees and have already been paid for the work they put in designing the product. They may be looking for new jobs if the company goes under, but the shareholders who fronted the capital for that development hoping for a long-term payoff risk losing their entire investment.

If employees of a publicly traded company want representation on the board they can always buy shares, individually or e.g. via their union if they have one. However, not wanting to take that kind of risk is a big part of why people choose to work as employees of someone else's company rather than being self-employed in the first place. It's safer to take the regular paycheck and invest your savings in a diversified portfolio rather going all-in and investing heavily in your employer.