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.
I asked where I “talked as if” it was unintentional.
Now you are acting like my last comment said it had to be explicit, or literal. That’s entirely made up in your head, nothing about my last comment said that.
Reading comprehension seems to be a big problem for people today.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I never said that, what are you talking about?
These laws are intentionally designed to enrich the ruling class.
“talk as if” and “literally said” are two wholly different things. They never said that, what are you talking about?
I asked where I “talked as if” it was unintentional.
Now you are acting like my last comment said it had to be explicit, or literal. That’s entirely made up in your head, nothing about my last comment said that.
Reading comprehension seems to be a big problem for people today.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So, you are agreeing with libertarians?
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.
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)
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.