Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and par…
Yes, there are laws about not picking up shit after dogs and they apply to rich people who get ticketed and sued for that, don't use your imagination, use Google to check basic facts about the real world. No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping, look it up. Laws are unequal by definition, why would anybody had two equal laws? Laws are different and not equal to each other. It's irrelevant to the topic of th…
Nominally. The magnitude of the fine matters, because the magnitude of the wealth available to pay the fine is notably higher than any given other person also subject to it. Hence the original quote.
>No, gentrification is not "equivalent" to camping
"both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities". "Look it up" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
This is what I mean when I say that they've already gotten to you, and that you're beggaring the question. The causal relationship between wealth (which is acquired, at best, amorally) and "things that are punished/rewarded" is that wealth allows one to set those rules themselves. Naturally, the wealthy reward their behavior and punish what offends them. This is a disjointing of morality and criminality, per the whims of the rich, which is the entire point of the quote. Meanwhile, there is behavior common to wealth that SHOULD be punished, but isn't.