"In what world" conveys extreme certainty to me. In any case, why would it even be probably? What's the theory which concludes that it would be unlikely for a representative government to allow a company to operate 11,000 satellites? People like the above commenter express outrage but seem unable to express why they're outraged. I guess it's supposed to be obvious, but I don't get it. It's some moving dots in the night sky. I get why astrophotographers would be annoyed. But it's a massive leap from that to saying it should have been outlawed.

I 100% agree that there's a problem of money putting a thumb on the scale. But I don't understand why that would even be relevant here. As far a I've seen (I'm not an expert but I have been following SpaceX since before they put anything into orbit) there has been no undue political influence in getting Starlink authorization to launch their constellation. We live in a system where things are permitted by default. There's no reason for the FAA or the FCC or whatever other regulatory bodies to deny it. Musk is gleefully using his money to put his thumb on the scale in other areas (spending nine figures in the recent elections is obscene) but why would he even have bothered here?

No it isn't, because in a representative system what is legal is a function of the will of the people who elect the representatives to write and vote on laws. It's legal because the people don't care enough to have it be otherwise, and so the representative system reflects that.