Reply #9: Economic status is the "okay" criterion for discrimination in this country.

[Callisto32]

Unfortunately, an economy such as ours causes a lot of people to think that poor people deserve to be that way, because they didn't pull their bootstraps hard enough.

While I have no problem with people being in different economic classes based upon their ability to turn a profit, I certainly think that the belief that the rich are somehow inherently superior to the poor is utter B.S. The only difference between the rich and the poor, for these purposes, is buying power. Both should always be subjected to the same rules of conduct, lest they be truly stripped of their right to equal opportunity.

Unfortunately, government regulation always disproportionately falls upon the poor.

Take, for example, the new lead regulations for toy makers. All models of toys must be tested and certified to be allowed to sell them targeted at people under 12 years of age. For playskool, this isn't a big deal. When they come out with a new model, of which they will make thousands of units, they can easily eat the $4k cost of the test, or whatever it costs. The local toymaker who makes building blocks out of unfinished wood still needs to have it tested, but doesn't have the billfold to afford the test, and thus cannot sell. Thus competition is killed, and the poor are harmed more than the rich.

This places the poor into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. When the regulation is equal, they are disproportionately affected by the costs incurred through that regulation. If the rich are making the rules (they are) it is unsurprising that they are made to the detriment of poor people.

Solution: Remove government regulation, and allow individuals to decide.

Some housing units might ban guns. That is the owner's right. If not required to under color of law, many won't. People that want guns banned can go to the places where it is banned, and vice versa.