Ontological status of the rule

I listened to the series and it was certainly interesting, but I don't remember any positive arguments in favor of the ontological status of the collective (but mainly a phenomenological description and halachic applications). Does the rabbi have positive arguments for believing in such a position (after all, if one assumes the existence of free choice, what reason is there not to derive the conduct of the public in a clear and unambiguous manner from the free choices of each individual)?

I don't see how there can be direct arguments for or against. My argument is that we all feel that this rule exists, and there is no obstacle that obliges us to deny it. I also argued in favor of free choice. In the end, the decision is based on our intuition. But I think that in most important debates, the basic intuitions are common to all of us, and the debate arises because some of us abandon intuition because they believe that reason requires that it is an illusion and a mistake. My goal is to show that this is not the case, and therefore there is no need to abandon intuition. Therefore, I focus on showing that such an intuition does exist and not on proving that it is correct (which is probably impossible).

Doesn't belief in free choice require an emergent view?

Absolutely not. On the contrary, in my opinion it almost mandates the opposite. But what does that have to do with the discussion? If it did mandate it, then what?