You might not like it but the reality is that people want Walmart. They will weather awful service for cheap prices.
If only that were all they had to endure. Cheap prices aren't the end of the story.
Some opponents get emotional about Walmart's size because they equate big with bad and a somehow unfair loss of choice, but the fact of the matter is that choice has a cost. And unfortunately, as a general rule, people don't want to pay for it.
If people were fully aware of the
other costs... chances are they would think twice.
No amount of good intentions and emotion will change that you, the planned market advocate, want something other people do not want to pay for.
Are you sure they don't want to pay for it? Do they know all the associated costs? Or is that being hidden from them for some reason?
You might be successful in hiding the cost and forcing them to pay for it through government lobbying and subsequent laws, but you might want to ask yourself why force is required in the first place. If you were truly on the side of the majority, a TV ad for a more expensive competitor with greater choice would have sufficed.
I certainly don't advocate hiding anything from citizens. I would much rather openly discuss the negative effects of lobbying and other means by which corporations try to capture government. Even better, let's all discuss the appropriate role of corporations. Should they exist? If so, what kinds of powers should we let them have? Personally, I find advertisements distasteful and would much rather not use media designed for distortion and misinformation. Instead, it would likely be better to directly involve as many citizens as possible to experience these things firsthand. Ultimately, it is best to let a truly informed democracy (a redundancy, actually) function unhindered.