That's a really cynical view, isn't it? Implying that the people, through their democratically elected governments, can't ever improve upon things that have come before.
Government isn't effective, democratic or otherwise. But I'm not a cynic. I have high hopes for humanity, long term. The sooner we get rid of the institutionalized use of force (government) the better.
I don't normally press people for alternatives, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If we were to get rid of "institutionalized use of force", what would we replace it with? Can you give me a single example of a large-scale society without effective government that hasn't devolved into a nightmare scenario?
You wouldn't replace it with anything. You'd need a cultural change where people recognized that stealing is always wrong, even if they call it taxes and declare it legal. Police and courts would be businesses like any other and not funded by force.
As for examples, America was founded in liberty. Unfortunately the nightmare scenario is playing out in real time as the US evolves from the tiny government of two centuries ago into the police state of tomorrow (today?). All libertarian societies I'm aware of eventually give way to the nightmare of the state. So, nope, I can't give you any examples of a libertarian society that lasted indefinitely. But brief liberty is better than none.
The only way I can see liberty playing out in a sustainable way is if the entire planet becomes libertarian so that there are no giant concentrations of force capable of taking it over and turning it back into a state. And I think this will eventually happen since it would continue the slow but steady moral advance of humanity.
Are you really making the claim that we have less liberty today than we did two hundred years ago? Maybe if you're a white male landowner. For everyone else, things have been getting progressively better over the last few hundred years.
Things have gotten better for most people because of moral advances and technological advances. But government has gotten worse and has slowed down progress.
The way I see it, when I read the constitution, it is fairly clear that the government was engineered to be a sort of anti-government. Something put into place to fill the power vacuum to prevent other "real" (defined as pretty much every other government they were familiar with at the time) from moving in and taking control.
Of course, I'm an anarchist, so I might be projecting... I think they also failed miserably though, because they forgot about human nature. Noble attempt, worthy of some praise, but ultimately it failed. Neat parallel to those who say communism failed because it forgot to consider human nature I think ;)
So founded in liberty? Basically just describes the mindset of the designers. What they were going for.
Of course, I'm an anarchist, so I might be projecting..
You're totally projecting. The constitution is pro-liberty and anti-tyranny, but it isn't really anti-government. One example: Patent protection is in the constitution, not exactly an anti-government stance.
>Can you give me a single example of a large-scale society without effective government that hasn't devolved into a nightmare scenario?
Of course not. Any time it has been tried (e.g. Spain, some of those under Lenin), other governments have recognized the danger and responded immediately to destroy the movement before it can take off.
The cynic can only take pleasure in saying "I told you so," but can never take credit for any improvement, which does occasionally happen against all odds.
