Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some goes to make sure that serious penalties and serious enforcement doesn't happen Representatives aren't emotionless puppets that respond to money. They're people, and they can be good or bad. In this case, they're bad, and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies. > that too is another avenue of ensuring maximum profit This is also insanely deluded and i…
> and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies. in your example they’re both bad—both the original aggressor and the one refusing to enforce against that aggressor. we need to mitigate against this desire to find The One thing to blame. By their very nature complicated situations will have many problems, rarely simply one. we need to remember this so we don’t…
The point that I'm trying to make is that, while evildoers will always exist, we don't have very much agency over their actions. You don't have very many options over the actions of a bad company (or person) - but you do have the ability to hold your representatives accountable and protest and vote against them if they don't make good laws and enforce them.
So, even though evil companies/people should be shunned, at the very least we know that there's always going to be some of them around - but our representatives are ostensibly acting in our bests interests, and have more responsibility, power, and accountability than the bad actors, so we should focus on them instead.
That is - the same amount of energy applied to our representatives will do far more good than applied to bad companies.