I admit that I can't understand the position that wants to leave everything to the self-regulatory nature of free market. I am pretty good at understanding various points of view, I like speculating on possible reasons and origins of someone's behavior, political views or oppressive tendencies.
And I can't get how anyone can think free market can regulate everything. Including education, racism, health care, culture, equality, workers' rights and so on. How can you privatize charity and support for the weakest in your society? How can you leave it to the market? Market is driven by greed, not compassion, long-term thinking or tolerance. It is about the profit, the higher the better. It's about stepping over others' backs, it's about selfishness and egocentrism. There is no need for reaching out to the weaker, the underprivileged, victimized by racism, inequality and judiciary abuse.
I remember one person telling me that the government has no place in charity, that this should be left to individuals. That when a person gives or receives charity that way the interpersonal relationships strengthen, character gets stronger and so on. But what about the ones who have no family? Who are asocial and burned bridges with their former friends or neighbors? Who came back scarred and traumatized from wars, unable to keep steady work and fit back in the society? Should we just let them die? Punish them for being born in a wrong neighborhood?
When we leave everything to the market humans become just another numbers in accountant's documents. Market doesn't care about investing in souls, spending on dignity or merging social gaps.
Are these people in denial? Do they really believe that in the quest for ever-raising profits people would remember to take care of the old, sick and weak? Or do they just dream to be part of the top 1% and are willing to step on own compassion for the sake of this dream? I can't understand what is wrong with the idea that spreading wealth helps fight inequality and builds stronger societies.
And I could get the rich supporting these policies, but they are the top 1%, even with all the money they wouldn't be able to achieve so much. They have poor masses supporting them. For what? For a dream of becoming one day another abusive rich pig?