I like your comment, but I'm not sure about this part:
> Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?
The parent comment says (with my emphasis):
>> a Tesla taking in $38B of government subsidy or a google/apple getting special lenient legal treatment is not laissez-faire.
As you note, there is something of an assumption here that the claim being responded to is that all incumbent-friendly policies are laissez-faire.
But there does not appear to be a claim that successfully seeking large subsidies isn't a type of corporate fitness.
> Is a brainworm that controls the host (e.g. to get some subsidies) the fittest? Based on your example, you think it's not. So how do you define fitness?
The parent comment says (with my emphasis):
>> a Tesla taking in $38B of government subsidy or a google/apple getting special lenient legal treatment is not laissez-faire.
As you note, there is something of an assumption here that the claim being responded to is that all incumbent-friendly policies are laissez-faire.
But there does not appear to be a claim that successfully seeking large subsidies isn't a type of corporate fitness.