when you say 'individual rights', you should be honest about which classes of people that was referring to. By the way, don't be so defensive, the working poor are being absolutely crushed by capital right now, your guys won!
were blacks considered men? did it include women? it feels like you're purposely ignoring history
Btw ~40% of the people i've met in homeless outreach have full time jobs, taxes are not what's keeping them homeless. In china 90% of the population own their homes, I'm sorry but the all that libertarian shit is such an obvious myth to protect the rich. Every country I've ever visited with more redistributive policies has a substantially better quality of life
Yes. The people who wrote the Constitution were well aware of the conundrum, but were faced with the reality that they could not form a union without allowing the slaveholders to continue. In essence, they kicked the can down the road, which resulted in a catastrophic war.
> did it include women?
Yes. Whether the word "men" means exclusively men or men and women depends on the context.
> taxes are not what's keeping them homeless
You're suggesting that taxes don't have effects beyond just paying the money. When a businessman is taxed, for example, that means he has less money to invest in his business, which means fewer jobs, fewer purchases of plant & equipment, slower growth, higher prices, etc., all of which negatively affect the rest of the economy, including poor people.
> that libertarian shit is such an obvious myth to protect the rich
America's rich people came from poor immigrants. The same for America's middle class.
> Every country I've ever visited with more redistributive policies has a substantially better quality of life
Have you ever looked at the size of government spending on redistribution? The US abandoned libertarianism in the early 1900s.
