You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, you are agreeing with libertarians?

[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, there should be rules to benefit the poor. But many of the laws now in effect in particular in the US are specifically not built for that. So many laws would better be dropped than enforced, and many are missing.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why there should be rules to benefit the poor, as opposed minimalistic neutral rules beneficial to the whole society and safety net like UBI? (that what libertarian would argue)

[–] AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

I guess it's a matter of semantics and if you're an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.

For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it's just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.