"Again prioritizing low cardinality event (stalking) instead of high cardinality event (theft)"

I don't think you can speak to the relative likelihood of these with any confidence. There are lots of people for whom stalking is a much bigger problem than theft.

They are prioritizing safety both personal and litigious. Apple markets it as a way to find lost things, not stolen things. There are trackers you can buy for tracking stolen things. I'm only familiar with ones designed for cars but I'm sure there are others as well.

That's a personal preference. I have like 12 AirTags and find them quite useful. The precise indoor tracking functionality is great. Losing/misplacing something happens a lot more to me than theft. Though I do have an airtag I've removed the speaker from, so could be useful in a theft situation.

It's useful to help locate things both at home and when traveling. But, yes, optimizing for potential theft recovery conflicts with disabling stalking and, however uncommon, the latter got a lot of publicity, so it's something Apple etc. wanted to focus on (especially given that, in most places, theft prevention probably wasn't very effective anyway).

I think you'll find it's not so much about how likely the event is (stalking vs theft) as it is about the potential impact of the event.

The things you want to "protect" with an invisible AirTag are, at their core "just stuff".

The things being protected by not selling an invisible AirTag are, at their core "people".

A train is barreling down the tracks while you stand at a switch. Do nothing and the train will destroy dozens of bicycles. If you pull the switch the train will kill one woman you've never met.

You sure you still wanna pull that switch?