That's like saying the wind imposes its will on a sailing ship. It's not entirely false, in the sense that the ship only goes in a direction that's not upwind, but - the ship uses the sail angle to take angled directions to that of the wind, or just furls up the sails - and eventually goes where the people sailing it want to.
I hope the simile is clear enough...
Specifically - persecution of minorities is not a "natural" social phenomenon, it is very much an acquired tendency on the personal level and encouraged and stoked by social, economical, and political institutions.
Do you actually want to go back to the days of companies beating workers when they collapse partway through a 13 hour day and paying them in store credit? Or can you agree that giving government the power to make those things illegal was a good idea?
Assault has always been against the law. But you expect the same government to “protect workers” when they just made people go back to work in the meat industry by invoking a law meant to be used in times of war?
> Assault has always been against the law. But you expect the same government to “protect workers” when they just made people go back to work in the meat industry by invoking a law meant to be used in times of war?
Well, obviously I'd prefer the government used their powers for good, i.e. actually protect workers.
Well, it has been a discovery process, but we have the Bill of Rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, The Meat Inspection Act, The Pure Food and Drug Act, The Fifteenth Amendment, The Civil Rights Act, HIPAA, The Americans with Disabilities Act... the list goes on.
And that's not to mention the basic places where government protects the weak from the strong, like arresting murderers and rapists.
So, I'd say, while it certainly could be working better, it's working out a lot better than you're giving it credit for.
In the US “it’s not the strong few”. The majority can and does use the government to impose its will.