That's an interesting distinction. One can understand the practical aspects. Those who can afford to hire armed security forces presumably can afford to keep them healthy and fed. And those forces (perhaps) are less likely to engage in illegal activities than non-incorporated forces. But fundamentally, this means that people with money can protect their property by means that violate the law, but people without money cannot. Whether the decision is valid or not, the result is that the poor will lose more than the rich.
I'm the CEO/CTO of Somewhere, Inc., a company building a unified social networking layer that gives people the means to track their friends across multiple social networks.
