In any country of tangible merit, there needs to be a rule of law; of which, that rule of law, plays no favorites, while also being consistently applied in a fair manner, so that it is no respecter of persons or status. In truth, virtually every nation, favors the rich at the expense of the poor; and therefore, favors those that own and have property, over those that do not.
For instance, when it comes to the political franchise of the vote, the United States, initially limited in its States, the voting rights of the general public, to just white males who owned a certain amount of property. Not too surprisingly, when only a subset of Americans is permitted to vote and the legislators, so elected, are essentially responsible to only those that voted them into office, then the legislature so subsequently passed, is going to have a strong tendency to favor the positions and desires of those that have the vote, over those that do not.
Any nation in which the rich, are afforded all of the advantages, and thereby none of the disadvantages; and in which the rich make it their point to socialize expenses such as for the police and the military, while getting their way in regards to favorable tax treatment, tax abatement, and tax set asides; then, in effect, the laws so being created and applied, are not fair. Further to the point, those that own a lot of material goods, such as their business, their home, their vehicles, and so on and so forth, often prefer to work under the structure of law, which aggressively protects the property rights of those that have these things, while caring hardly a whit about those that do not.
The bottom line is that to a very large extent the “protecting and serving” by police forces all over this nation, is mainly their protecting and serving those that have, as opposed to those that have not. After all, people with money, position, and power, have a distinct value that means something of significance and of real worth to all those that service such. An argument could be made, that in societies, in which there is a great degree of disparity between the very, very rich and those that have little or nothing; that those that have the wealth have made it a fundamental priority to secure that wealth, by essentially “owning” the policing arm of the state, as well as its justice system.
So then, what we so find, again and again, is that, when the rubber meets the road, laws which appear to be fair and sensible, are in their application, anything but; for nations consistently favor and readily accommodate those that have power, money, and influence; at the expense, always, of those that are the oppressed, the forgotten, and the neglected. This thus clearly signifies, that those that cry the loudest for “law and order”, are quite obviously those that have something to lose, and therefore demand that their property assets be protected from those that are the “barbarians” at their gate, and pretty much don’t really care how that is done as long as they are able to keep that which they have.