By what criterion do you propose we make the decision which naturally occurring behaviors are worth banning? And more importantly — who determines how to enforc

By what criterion do you propose we make the decision which naturally occurring behaviors are worth banning? And more importantly — who determines how to enforce the ban? Because usually “those with the gold make the rules” and ask for more legislation to pull the ladder up behind them. Why is collusion of GameStop or AMC Wall Street Bets meme investors to drive up the price of a stock against hedge funds not worthy of banning? It was cut short in a way, by RobinHood which quickly stopped living up its “for the people” namesake. Why is collusion of investors to drive up the price of certain startups in private rounds, like Adam Neumann’s WeWork or Travis Kalanick’s Uber not worthy of banning? Or banking at the same Silicon Valley bank? Or Peter Thiel starting a run on this bank and many of them in unison pulling money out and wiping out the shareholders in a bank that served Silicon Valley for decades? I mean, I don’t think any of that should be illegal, but what is your consistent criterion and why should others go with whatever your criterion is, versus something else? Or is it just all about “I don’t like that particular thing?”