VGPolyglot said:
Namely property rights: the fact that richer people have a lot more property and the fact that many workers do not own the means of production means that they are either forced to work in a capacity where they get a set amount of money and the owner gets all of the rest of the profits or they refuse and have to starve to death. There's also the amendment that ended slavery, except of course if it is for a crime. Rich people have better lawyers and more connections, so obviously they can avoid prison more easily than poorer people, which puts prisoners into slavery (not to mention as poorer people have less property they have less money and as they cannot afford to make ends meet they become desperate and commit theft, and the law ignores the circumstances: for example is a poor person stole $100 from Bill Gates to pay for food for his family he would get arrested, despite Bill Gates never needing that money at all). |
That's more of a consquence of the current economic climate and not the constitution, which only states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It doesn't favour anybody, except the "citizen", what you're talking about here more is worker's rights which is a bit of a separate issue. I'm not sure what you mean by slavery here.
Now of course you would get arrested for theft if you stole from someone because if you didn't then your entire system would be so corrupt that it would not be functional. You have a point where being able to stand up to your rights can be an issue and many people from all parts of the political spectrum would agree here, but that's the battle isn't it?
