Good. Agreements should as much as possible be free between consenting parties. It shouldn't be normal to expect the government to be involved in approving things except where there's a great reason to need it.
The problem with this ideology is that will destroy society and reduce it to ashes.
> It shouldn't be normal to expect the government to be involved in approving things except where there's a great reason to need it.
Step 1: Adobe buys Figma
.
.
.
Step n: Adobe takes over a small town and forces people to make websites?
Please tell me how the government’s actions has stopped that conclusion.
If you think preventing company towns isn't a great reason to need approval, fair enough, but then why are you saying company towns are bad?
And if a town is dependent on one major employee should we do what exactly?
Where is here?
I'm really struggling to understand why you're asking questions tartly instead of just reading what I said, which I tried to make very simple to understand, and replying just as simply.
You said the government shouldn't involve itself "unless there's a great reason to do so," which I interpret as implying you disagree with the reasons. Do you think anti-trust measures are a great reason?
I don't have any numbers and probably more than 50% do fail, but not 90%. Plenty of bakers, restaurants, accountants and small shops succeed in making money for the owners, employment for the staff and value for the customers.