> He built that $500B company. He did have a bit of help along the way. Even if their contributions were smaller, it's sick to pretend they're zero. > He stil

> He built that $500B company. He did have a bit of help along the way. Even if their contributions were smaller, it's sick to pretend they're zero. > He still owns the majority of it. AIUI he owns the majority of the voting rights but not of the total shares. He still has a duty to act in the interests of the shareholders as a group, and can be sued if he does not. Beyond the merely legal to the moral, he has duties to other stakeholders as well, and to society. > At what point of scale do people start imagining they have a right to make demands on how something somebody else built and owns should be run? "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Others contributed. Others are affected. Those facts give them some right, however small, to make such demands. The only situation in which someone has sole right to make every possible decision is an utter vacuum. Does he or the company operate in a vacuum?