That's not how laws work.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that law has a tendency to work the other way, in that it protects the big guy at the expense of the little guy because of extensive lobbying from the well moneyed big guy, or that justice is blind and it effects all equally?

If you're thinking the former I could agree with that on some level and would say that what I'm asking in my original comment is merely aspirational, but if you're suggesting the latter I'd merely point to the former and say that this is the status quo.

The law generally tries to create a level playing field (or more level playing field).

The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law.

In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.

This isn't true.

I can think of many examples off the top of my head.

Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.

You are right. The entire basis of those laws is the two classes.

I was referring to laws (such as copyright) that don't have an inherent class distinction dimension. Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, having two classes creates an arbitrary line which will almost certainly end up where the rich want it.

> Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright,

This is also incorrect as copyright is intrinsically about creating two classes of people -- those who own the copyright and those who don't.