You're challenging a statement of the form, "A causes B. I don't like B, so we shouldn't do A." You are challenging it by asking, "How does not doing A prevent B?" Converting that to logic, you are replacing "A implies B" with "not-A implies not-B". But those statements are far from equivalent!
To answer the real question, it is good to not guarantee a bad result, even though doing so doesn't guarantee a good result. So no, choosing not to regulate does not guarantee that we stop this particular problem. It just means that we won't CAUSE it.
If they meant to say “contributes to,” then the obvious question is: to what degree and for what benefit? Which is a very different conversation than a binary “enabling” of a bad outcome.
That clearly stupid argument exactly parallels what you are saying. Down to using the word "enables".
High barriers to entry however does prevent prevent competition and that does raise prices.
> The game is already highly centralized in ultra-well capitalized companies due to the economics of the industry itself.
Was this not true about computers when they were new? What would have happened if early on similar laws were passed restricting computers?
