> the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation I disagree that "the system" is "meant" for anything - the system is not a monolith even i

> the system is still meant for profound inequality and exploitation I disagree that "the system" is "meant" for anything - the system is not a monolith even if certain parts of the machinery work well together, it is rarely a question of design, usually a mishmash of various historical phenomena and trends that happen to exist simultaneously. I think my plea for "a little bit of this and a little bit of that" perhaps got somewhat muted in my comment, placed at the very end like it was. So I agree that it would be oppressive to always treat everyone equal, the billionaire as well as the double working lone mom, and that machines many time is a prime tool for oppression and deflecting responsibility. But it would be problematic to start chipping away at the ideal of everyone's equality under the law in order to rectify such. This ideal is what stands between institutions like freedom, democracy and human rights on the one hand and corrupt states on the other, where the law is applied differently depending on who is on trial, and where the letter and intent of the law is flaunted in favor of pure (real) oppression. The problem really seems to be discerning where to apply "a little bit of this" vs where to apply "a little bit of that", a project that doesn't lend itself well to sweeping generalizations.