They sold their principles for popularity. How did they go from “the state is not responsible for welfare” to supporting mandatory accessibility in private businesses, which is a law with a socialist-fascist smell to it?

The only things missing here are: Nazi, pagan, Stalinist, Maoist, idolatrous, sexual immorality, and bloodshed. But it’s not too late; you can still add those too.

Wait, a law that forbids me from opening a law office on the second floor without an elevator isn’t socialist? Adding the description “fascist” may be less clear, but I meant a disproportionate coercion of the collective’s worldview on the individual.
What we have here is a complete reversal of Zehut’s ideology in order to scrape together votes. Turns out it’s just another opportunistic party like all the others..

Dear Rabbi Levi. First, take a breath, breathe, think a little, and then write. Maybe it will come out more sensible. Vehemence is not a substitute for arguments and thought.
Here are a few points to consider:
1. Imposing worldviews does not necessarily contradict capitalism. Capitalists in the U.S. support forcing a ban on abortions. They support imposing various nationalist views. Feiglin himself supports imposing nationalist and Jewish worldviews, so why did you single him out דווקא over law offices?
2. Even if there were such a contradiction between imposing a worldview and capitalism, opening a law office without an elevator is not a question of worldview.
3. What about bans on monopolies (restrictive arrangements)? That is state coercion imposed on the free market, and almost every capitalist in the world supports it (in fact, mainly capitalists support it).
4. There is a sensible capitalism that supports state intervention when there are market failures (like monopolies). And the rationale is that this capitalism is based on the invisible hand as a substitute for state centralism. But when there are problems that the invisible hand will not solve (like accessible offices for people with disabilities), there is room for state intervention even if you are a capitalist.
5. And in general, capitalism is not a religious dogma. A committed capitalist is allowed to depart from it when he sees that this is the right thing to do. There is no reason to pounce on him as a heretic against the fundamentals if he does so. Or perhaps you are in favor of imposing your religious beliefs in capitalism on the public?…