Will Classical Liberalism Kill the Social Justice Left?

[The Liberated Territories]

Some people here seem to be misreading my posts.

I never once said libertarians believed the same things as nazis. That would be absolutely ridiculous, as well as insulting. I don't believe that libertarians, or fascists for that matter, actively seek to propagate hatred and exploitation. The vast majority of them think they are doing what's best for society, however I believe they are very misguided.

I believe if ever implemented, libertarianism would lead to a society full of exploitation and oppression of the likes never seen before. Corporations would rule the world in some type of neo-feudalism, with the workers living as serfs with abysmal conditions and lives.
Under fascism, the state directed business. Under libertarianism, business would direct the state. That is why I see fascism and libertarianism as two sides of the same coin. However the prospect of corporations controlling the government frightens me, which is why I stated that I think libertarianism could quite possibly be worse.

Again, I wish to iterative that I don't believe the two ideologies hold the same principles. However I believe they would both lead to horrendous hatred and exploitation, and I believe that corporations running the government is an element which makes libertarianism seem worse than fascism to me.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that was not my intention.

Really? Because you heavily implied it.

Corporations are creatures of the state. Under a theoretical libertarian society, their power would be greatly reduced, as their ability to use the state in order to protect their profits and eliminate the competition would be impossible. What I am more curious of is how progressives can argue that corporations control the government, therefore we need more government to help us out of the corporate controlled government?

:sibirsky: Corporations won't run the government. Corporations won't freaking exist, at least not in their current form.

[Ardoki]

In my opinion, they are. Why shouldn't I just lump all ideologies which propagate hate and exploitation together? They have the same effect, so they are different forms of the same idea.

In what ways do libertarianism support hate? Considering the fact that Libertarian theories support things such as freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and support policies such as [ulr=http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm]Extremly scares immigration laws.[/url] contrasted with Nazism which basicly propagated religious and racial hatred with many classical liberals actively reject. I don't think you know much about the subject of which your talking about considering that your saying Libertarianism and Nazism are equal because they support hate. But yet things you've said about religion in the past would lump you in with these groups as well, plus the fact that libertarians and Nazis agree on pretty much nothing as far as social policies are concerned and very limitedly on economic issues (Corporatism=/=Free Market Capitalism). Your claims of "defending Ayn Rand is rediculous because it doesn't argue the posters points. Not to mention that just because someone's a libertarian means they are a supporter of Ayn Rand (many libertarians disagree on her in multiple area, her views of self preservation and altruism for instance). Your claims of "defending Hitler" do they same. Your basicly trying to stop the discussion by saying "my opponent is wrong because he supports/defends Hitler" and doesn't answer the positions and points made by the poster.

.5/10 take a debate class mate.

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

[Planita]

Some people here seem to be misreading my posts.

I never once said libertarians believed the same things as nazis. That would be absolutely ridiculous, as well as insulting. I don't believe that libertarians, or fascists for that matter, actively seek to propagate hatred and exploitation. The vast majority of them think they are doing what's best for society, however I believe they are very misguided.

I believe if ever implemented, libertarianism would lead to a society full of exploitation and oppression of the likes never seen before. Corporations would rule the world in some type of neo-feudalism, with the workers living as serfs with abysmal conditions and lives.
Under fascism, the state directed business. Under libertarianism, business would direct the state. That is why I see fascism and libertarianism as two sides of the same coin. However the prospect of corporations controlling the government frightens me, which is why I stated that I think libertarianism could quite possibly be worse.

Again, I wish to iterative that I don't believe the two ideologies hold the same principles. However I believe they would both lead to horrendous hatred and exploitation, and I believe that corporations running the government is an element which makes libertarianism seem worse than fascism to me.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that was not my intention.

Really? Because you heavily implied it.

Corporations are creatures of the state. Under a theoretical libertarian society, their power would be greatly reduced, as their ability to use the state in order to protect their profits and eliminate the competition would be impossible. What I am more curious of is how progressives can argue that corporations control the government, therefore we need more government to help us out of the corporate controlled government?

:sibirsky: Corporations won't run the government. Corporations won't freaking exist, at least not in their current form.

*sigh*

[Ardoki]

Some people here seem to be misreading my posts.

I never once said libertarians believed the same things as nazis. That would be absolutely ridiculous, as well as insulting. I don't believe that libertarians, or fascists for that matter, actively seek to propagate hatred and exploitation. The vast majority of them think they are doing what's best for society, however I believe they are very misguided.

I believe if ever implemented, libertarianism would lead to a society full of exploitation and oppression of the likes never seen before. Corporations would rule the world in some type of neo-feudalism, with the workers living as serfs with abysmal conditions and lives.
Under fascism, the state directed business. Under libertarianism, business would direct the state. That is why I see fascism and libertarianism as two sides of the same coin. However the prospect of corporations controlling the government frightens me, which is why I stated that I think libertarianism could quite possibly be worse.

Again, I wish to iterative that I don't believe the two ideologies hold the same principles. However I believe they would both lead to horrendous hatred and exploitation, and I believe that corporations running the government is an element which makes libertarianism seem worse than fascism to me.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that was not my intention.

See, now you make sense, x)
I have the same fear, I do not want large conglomerate of corporations running the world, it would be like a gigantic dictatorship,
but Governments can do the same, that's why i'm an Anarchist, both will oppress the people.

At least governments are subject to the will of the people (to a much greater degree in democracies, but even dictatorships have to take care of their people lest face a revolution). While corporations are beholden only to their stock holders, in order to survive they must maximise profit regardless of the cost to society and the environment.

[Planita]

See, now you make sense, x)
I have the same fear, I do not want large conglomerate of corporations running the world, it would be like a gigantic dictatorship,
but Governments can do the same, that's why i'm an Anarchist, both will oppress the people.

At least governments are subject to the will of the people (to a much greater degree in democracies, but even dictatorships have to take care of their people lest face a revolution). While corporations are beholden only to their stock holders, in order to survive they must maximise profit regardless of the cost to society and the environment.

Or they can violently suppress them.

[Insaeldor]

Some people here seem to be misreading my posts.

I never once said libertarians believed the same things as nazis. That would be absolutely ridiculous, as well as insulting. I don't believe that libertarians, or fascists for that matter, actively seek to propagate hatred and exploitation. The vast majority of them think they are doing what's best for society, however I believe they are very misguided.

I believe if ever implemented, libertarianism would lead to a society full of exploitation and oppression of the likes never seen before. Corporations would rule the world in some type of neo-feudalism, with the workers living as serfs with abysmal conditions and lives.
Under fascism, the state directed business. Under libertarianism, business would direct the state. That is why I see fascism and libertarianism as two sides of the same coin. However the prospect of corporations controlling the government frightens me, which is why I stated that I think libertarianism could quite possibly be worse.

Again, I wish to iterative that I don't believe the two ideologies hold the same principles. However I believe they would both lead to horrendous hatred and exploitation, and I believe that corporations running the government is an element which makes libertarianism seem worse than fascism to me.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that was not my intention.

Hitler was basically a libertarian, he supported the libertarian ideology of social Darwinism.

>Falsely claims the worst war criminal in history is basicly part of a specific group.
>Sorry he offended people from that specific group.

Wee lad.

[Ardoki]

At least governments are subject to the will of the people (to a much greater degree in democracies, but even dictatorships have to take care of their people lest face a revolution). While corporations are beholden only to their stock holders, in order to survive they must maximise profit regardless of the cost to society and the environment.

Or they can violently suppress them.

Police and soldiers will not sit by and watch their friends and families be killed for no reason or forced to be slaves. Oppressive regimes can't be too oppressive, otherwise they'll lose the support they depend upon for power.

[The Liberated Territories]

In what ways do libertarianism support hate? Considering the fact that Libertarian theories support things such as freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and support policies such as [ulr=http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm]Extremly scares immigration laws.[/url] contrasted with Nazism which basicly propagated religious and racial hatred with many classical liberals actively reject. I don't think you know much about the subject of which your talking about considering that your saying Libertarianism and Nazism are equal because they support hate. But yet things you've said about religion in the past would lump you in with these groups as well, plus the fact that libertarians and Nazis agree on pretty much nothing as far as social policies are concerned and very limitedly on economic issues (Corporatism=/=Free Market Capitalism). Your claims of "defending Ayn Rand is rediculous because it doesn't argue the posters points. Not to mention that just because someone's a libertarian means they are a supporter of Ayn Rand (many libertarians disagree on her in multiple area, her views of self preservation and altruism for instance). Your claims of "defending Hitler" do they same. Your basicly trying to stop the discussion by saying "my opponent is wrong because he supports/defends Hitler" and doesn't answer the positions and points made by the poster.

.5/10 take a debate class mate.

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

Some may buy into it, but it's too simplistic of an argument. Particularly in the current state of affairs, libertarians more or less believe it is the welfare state per se that is making everyone poor. If people are poor and lazy, it's because of government meddling, it's not necessarily their fault (although there ARE people who are poor because of laziness, it shouldn't be conflated as both liberals conservatives are fond of doing in opposite ways) Do note that since Johnson's Great Society, America has gotten actually poorer, whereas before that poverty was decreasing. [link]

Edit: I should say instead of getting poorer (as GDP has still risen), that the amount of poor people has not decreased significantly.

[Ardoki]

Some people here seem to be misreading my posts.

I never once said libertarians believed the same things as nazis. That would be absolutely ridiculous, as well as insulting. I don't believe that libertarians, or fascists for that matter, actively seek to propagate hatred and exploitation. The vast majority of them think they are doing what's best for society, however I believe they are very misguided.

I believe if ever implemented, libertarianism would lead to a society full of exploitation and oppression of the likes never seen before. Corporations would rule the world in some type of neo-feudalism, with the workers living as serfs with abysmal conditions and lives.
Under fascism, the state directed business. Under libertarianism, business would direct the state. That is why I see fascism and libertarianism as two sides of the same coin. However the prospect of corporations controlling the government frightens me, which is why I stated that I think libertarianism could quite possibly be worse.

Again, I wish to iterative that I don't believe the two ideologies hold the same principles. However I believe they would both lead to horrendous hatred and exploitation, and I believe that corporations running the government is an element which makes libertarianism seem worse than fascism to me.
I apologise if I offended anyone, that was not my intention.

Hitler was basically a libertarian, he supported the libertarian ideology of social Darwinism.

>Falsely claims the worst war criminal in history is basicly part of a specific group.
>Sorry he offended people from that specific group.

Wee lad.

I'm sure claiming Hitler was a fascist would offend quite a lot of fascists (a lot of fascists despise nazism), however that isn't going to stop me from expressing my opinion that Hitler was a fascist.

[Ardoki]

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

Some may buy into it, but it's too simplistic of an argument. Particularly in the current state of affairs, libertarians more or less believe it is the welfare state per se that is making everyone poor. If people are poor and lazy, it's because of government meddling, it's not necessarily their fault (although there ARE people who are poor because of laziness, it shouldn't be conflated as both liberals conservatives are fond of doing in opposite ways) Do note that since Johnson's Great Society, America has gotten actually poorer, whereas before that poverty was decreasing. [link]

Edit: I should say instead of getting poorer (as GDP has still risen), that the amount of poor people has not decreased significantly.

I don't consider the Heritage Foundation as a reliable source. They are a libertarian/conservative organisation, thus have an ideological agenda to push.

[Planita]

>Falsely claims the worst war criminal in history is basicly part of a specific group.
>Sorry he offended people from that specific group.

Wee lad.

I'm sure claiming Hitler was a fascist would offend quite a lot of fascists (a lot of fascists despise nazism), however that isn't going to stop me from expressing my opinion that Hitler was a fascist.

You still didn't answer the "Hitler was basically a libertarian" part.

[Costa Fierro]

Or they can violently suppress them.

Police and soldiers will not sit by and watch their friends and families be killed for no reason or forced to be slaves. Oppressive regimes can't be too oppressive, otherwise they'll lose the support they depend upon for power.

So, North Korea is a benevolent dictatorship?

[Insaeldor]

In what ways do libertarianism support hate? Considering the fact that Libertarian theories support things such as freedom of the press, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and support policies such as [ulr=http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Libertarian_Party_Immigration.htm]Extremly scares immigration laws.[/url] contrasted with Nazism which basicly propagated religious and racial hatred with many classical liberals actively reject. I don't think you know much about the subject of which your talking about considering that your saying Libertarianism and Nazism are equal because they support hate. But yet things you've said about religion in the past would lump you in with these groups as well, plus the fact that libertarians and Nazis agree on pretty much nothing as far as social policies are concerned and very limitedly on economic issues (Corporatism=/=Free Market Capitalism). Your claims of "defending Ayn Rand is rediculous because it doesn't argue the posters points. Not to mention that just because someone's a libertarian means they are a supporter of Ayn Rand (many libertarians disagree on her in multiple area, her views of self preservation and altruism for instance). Your claims of "defending Hitler" do they same. Your basicly trying to stop the discussion by saying "my opponent is wrong because he supports/defends Hitler" and doesn't answer the positions and points made by the poster.

.5/10 take a debate class mate.

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

[The Union of English Speaking Countries]

>Falsely claims the worst war criminal in history is basicly part of a specific group.
>Sorry he offended people from that specific group.

Wee lad.

I'm sure claiming Hitler was a fascist would offend quite a lot of fascists (a lot of fascists despise nazism), however that isn't going to stop me from expressing my opinion that Hitler was a fascist.

Hitler, WAS a fascist. He most certainly was not a libertarian as you insist on claiming despite mountains, nay planetfulls worth of evidence to the contrary.

[The Liberated Territories]

Some may buy into it, but it's too simplistic of an argument. Particularly in the current state of affairs, libertarians more or less believe it is the welfare state per se that is making everyone poor. If people are poor and lazy, it's because of government meddling, it's not necessarily their fault (although there ARE people who are poor because of laziness, it shouldn't be conflated as both liberals conservatives are fond of doing in opposite ways) Do note that since Johnson's Great Society, America has gotten actually poorer, whereas before that poverty was decreasing. [link]

Edit: I should say instead of getting poorer (as GDP has still risen), that the amount of poor people has not decreased significantly.

I don't consider the Heritage Foundation as a reliable source. They are a libertarian/conservative organisation, thus have an ideological agenda to push.

Congratulations, you just realized all organizations have ideological agendas that they push. Does this mean their sources (Gorden Fisher and the US census bureau) are necessarily wrong? I don't believe so.

[Ardoki]

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

The welfare state ensures all citizens have access to healthcare and education, fundamental human rights. If you believe that poor people don't deserve such things, I think you just proved my point about the hatred of the poor.

[Insaeldor]

>Falsely claims the worst war criminal in history is basicly part of a specific group.
>Sorry he offended people from that specific group.

Wee lad.

I'm sure claiming Hitler was a fascist would offend quite a lot of fascists (a lot of fascists despise nazism), however that isn't going to stop me from expressing my opinion that Hitler was a fascist.

The difference is, Nazism is based in Facist principles. Nazism is not based in Libertarianism. It's correct to to say "Hitler was a fascist" because he was in many respects. The same can not be said of libertarians because they hold no ideological link to Hitler and were in fact despised by the Nazi regime.

[Victoriala]

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

The smoking gun.

This is the smoking gun.

The smoking gun and a dropmic combined in two.

The ultimate /micdrop.

[Insaeldor]

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

The welfare state ensures all citizens have access to healthcare and education, fundamental human rights. If you believe that poor people don't deserve such things, I think you just proved my point about the hatred of the poor.

Again with ignoring key points in arguments. No they don't hate they welfare state because they hate the poor. It's about everyone doing their fair share and contributing to society at large.

[Victoriala]

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

The welfare state ensures all citizens have access to healthcare and education, fundamental human rights. If you believe that poor people don't deserve such things, I think you just proved my point about the hatred of the poor.

Appealing to emotion, to add what Insaeldor said.

[Ardoki]

The welfare state ensures all citizens have access to healthcare and education, fundamental human rights. If you believe that poor people don't deserve such things, I think you just proved my point about the hatred of the poor.

Again with ignoring key points in arguments. No they don't hate they welfare state because they hate the poor. It's about everyone doing their fair share and contributing to society at large.

I previously acknowledged that I don't believe they are intentionally propagating hatred, it is mostly unintentional. Some libertarianism probably believe that what they support will help the poor, however in reality their ideology has been used to excuse actions which has harmed the poor greatly (undermining universal healthcare and public education, workfare, etcetera).

[Conserative Morality]

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

Dress it up as much as you like; when you say "People would rather live on the government dole than do paying work", you're calling them lazy.

[Ardoki]

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

Dress it up as much as you like; when you say "People would rather live on the government dole than do paying work", you're calling them lazy.

Thank you. This is a very valid point.

[The Liberated Territories]

Libertarianism propagates hatred of workers and the poor. It supports the notion that if you work hard, you will become rich, which leads to those who aren't rich being blamed for being lazy and thus rationalising the removal of the welfare state.

That's not hatred, or at least your line of logic is flawed in that it implies people automatically think that people who are poor are lazy. I've yet to see that actually said by a libertarian. The argument against the welfare state is because it's viewed as allowing people to live of the earnings of others while not contributing themselves. That point is obviously debatable and is heavily debated within Libertarian circles. But the argument really isn't "poor people must be lazy so we need to get rid of welfare!" It's "Welfare propagates a culture of lack of input into the society. Reasonable, hard working people who would otherwise contribute don't because they've found a way to live off tax money which should go to more importent things."

Lets not try and wrongly simply things.

More specifically. The argument against the welfare state should be is that it robs the poor through taxation of their earnings and impoverishes them further than if it didn't exist, creating a culture of dependency while keeping the political class both well funded and able to use welfare as the perfect baitline. It's not the poor's fault, they did not ask for the taxes, regulations, and barriers to entry - it's the rich and government's fault for protecting their money and power by finding a way to trap the potential competition at the bottom.

[Insaeldor]

Again with ignoring key points in arguments. No they don't hate they welfare state because they hate the poor. It's about everyone doing their fair share and contributing to society at large.

I previously acknowledged that I don't believe they are intentionally propagating hatred, it is mostly unintentional. Some libertarianism probably believe that what they support will help the poor, however in reality their ideology has been used to excuse actions which has harmed the poor greatly (undermining universal healthcare and public education, workfare, etcetera).

Okay here are the rebuttles most libertarians would use.

Universal Healthcare: State run healthcare is flawed because it su comes to the issues of bus racy and slow ineffective management (the Veterans Administration Hospital a candle is an example.) Healthcare run through the private sector is cheaper and more well ran as well as more efficient because it bends to the will of market computing this driving I ovation to provide the best care to those in need. Without competition you simply develope a slow and bloated system that can be neglectful. The states only role should be to disrupt actions such as monopolies and general misconduct.

Public Education: Different states and communities need different standards of education. A one size fits all education policy doesn't work. Also private school are able to offer a better education to youths than public schools as seen by the disparity between graduation rates, employment rates, and college acceptance between students who attend private and public schools. The reason private schools are so expensive is because of the fact these instatutions have to run on the law of supply and demand. You have a high demand for these instatutions but little supply. If you allow for these institutions to grow while also giving aid to people who need it (similar the the pel grant program) this would be greatly alleviated.

Workfare: Workfare is inherently superior because it works on a principle that, while yes we reginize you are out of work and we will help you support yourself you have to either look for a job or be doing activities which increase your prospects of obtaining a job. Like attending classes to get a vitrification for a specific employment of doing volunteer work which is shown to increase your chances of employment. It help prevent issues where people unjustly exploit the welfare system to not work (weather by choice or circumstance) and gives people the ability to contribute to society at large.

These aren't based on hatred of poor people but are actually meant to positively benefit them in the long term.