It is the most democratic situation. Companies can decide between a leave that market, b treat the whole world by the strictest laws or c only follow those laws for those residents. If the cheapest solution is b, and capitalism demands the cheapest solution, then that’s useful information for the shareholders to choose a path. Just because we know what they will always choose doesn’t make it undemocratic.

b might just not be possible as above poster wrote, regulations might be in conflict.

The problem is, what is a democratic global government? Larger states dominate smaller states in democratic governments all over the world simply because of numbers of votes. Having yet another layer of elections over it doesn't really make much of a difference.

> Larger states dominate smaller states in democratic governments all over the world simply because of numbers of votes.

At what governance level would this be acceptable for you? The existence of political minorities is invitable. The question is where do you draw the line: street, block, postal code, city, metro, region, state, or nation? When is it ok to dominate others because they got less votes? The same issue is reflected in red states grabbing power from blue cities, with the implication that the state-level domination is A-OK.

I didn't say anything about acceptability. But if grandparent's comment is this

> with the EU and California it’s mostly the case where (one of) the largest market(s) is able to set laws that govern the entire world

this is not likely to be solved by yet another layer of government.

Population of a nation doesn't necessarily correspond to influence, though.

In a democracy it does correspond with votes though. Other than one person = one vote, how would you structure a global government?

> how would you structure a global government?

We're not going to structure a global government, such a thing is never going to exist and we're never going to have to worry about it existing. Fortunately.