The law, also in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to murder, physically harm others etc.

Less fancy.

Consistency is not perfect but it is better than dictators picking favorites.

Take theft alone:

https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/abuse-by-bosses-comes...

https://images.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/ZQYbyzoDpfIv5LdWl1...

And when short of bread, both rich and poor alike are free to eat cake.

I’ve never gotten this quote. On the face of it it seems like a high priority that the law should not respect the station of a person. If a society has made something illegal it needs to apply from the least to the greatest, or the law is unjust.

I think what I would take from it is that it all though the laws are the same, they do not effect each person in the same way.

How likely is it for the rich to sleep I under a bridge, beg or steal bread? Those are crimes to punish those too poor to be able to afford anything else.

Or to put it another way, it’s a crime to be poor.

Isn't that just to say that murder is a crime both for the pacifist and the psycopath? If society deems something to be illegal it is illegal for both those who would never do it and those who could gain from doing it. That is fundamental for all laws.

There is law and there is justice.

To my mind that is what I am advocating for, a law must apply universally to be just.

There is social justice and there are social laws.

Oh wait, footgun...

It's one of those quotes you shouldn't think about too much, because it really makes no sense. It's meant to make people feel. Because feelings are easier to manipulate than thoughts.

I strongly disagree. It has a clear point, one you can understand quite clearly with your mind.

Laws against doing things that only desperate poor people do may appear equal, since they in theory apply just as much to the rich. But in practice they only affect the poor. And the way they affect the poor is to close off options, and thereby increase the desperation.

Sure, you should feel that. You should also understand it with your mind.

> On the face of it it seems like a high priority that the law should not respect the station of a person.

Generally the opposite is true. Consider, say, sumptuary laws.

Equally-applied law sustains inequity.

Any sort of bettering that is not globally experienced equally sustains inequity. To go to an absurd place the improvements I made to my garden this year sustain inequity since I now have and enjoy them and others do not, but they would if I had donated the same amount of time to a community garden. That alone should not be a compelling reason to act.

Inequity is a natural state.

Should discrimination be applied to achieve "equity"?

If so, how is that fair to those being discriminated against?

Inequality sustained or increased by the law of man is entirely artificial.

Discrimination has long been applied to achieve inequality. I'm willing to try the opposite as a countermeasure.

https://www.newberry.org/newberry-and-restrictive-covenants