Well, you don’t seem to be reading what I am saying, preferring, it seems, to read what you want into my statements, so it may be pointless to continue, but I’ll gove it one more shot.
I said early on that the Articles of Confederation were the first attempt at what you want - you keep talking about the Constitution instead (which actually was NOT an attempt to establish limited government per the DoI, but rather to establish a State - but done to suggest it was the former). Suggest you do some due diligence on AoC vs Constitution. Rather different beasties. The Constitution was not flawed - it was precisely what the Federalists wanted: it established a clear field for a mercantilist national State - just like the British one we’d fought against - to evolve as desired, and the BoR could not stop it. Strongly suggest you download a copy of Nock’s ‘Our Enemy the State’ from mises.org lit section and read it, or maybe pick up Beard’s historical analysis of the US. Both the AoC and the Constitution failed in their purported objectives of establishing a limited govt of enumerated powers because the forces of the money and power elites took control (in the first case, they performed a coup d’etat and overthrew the AoC).
You have so far given me no reason to think you have better ideas than our Founders, despite the 200+ years that have intervened. Taking Hamilton ‘out behind the barn and giving him two in the hat’ would not work - there are always plenty of Hamiltons ready, willing and able to take his place. Today, the Federalists aka Nationalists number in tens of millions - we can’t take them all our behind the barn!
And creating a Constitution with no provisions for change, as you suggest, is itself a recipe for disaster.
I haven’t seen a single suggestion from your posts backed up by compelling logic indicating they’d make a difference for the better.
Personally, I think Montesquieu (I think it was he) was right in asserting that a Republic will never work in a nation this size - it will inevitably erode into a democracy, such as we have today. The Republican form of government is only suitable for a much smaller land/population. I think our experience in America goes a long way toward demonstrating his point.
History is unequivocally clear on the point that, once established, governments invariably become controlled by the money and power elites. You will have to give me a clear and compelling argument as to why that would somehow change under the minarchist system you imagine. Rather, yor argument seems to be ‘we should have faith in our ability to get right what our (vastly better educated and motivated) forefathers could not.’ I am utterly unwilling to make that leap of faith because the lessons of history as I understand them indicate that we should not expect this to work.
Also, I did not mean that drought and famine would never happen, and stated that “provisions for drought and famine would be undertaken” in a society where individuals recognized that they had only themselves to look to when it comes to being prepared for what comes. It is governments that are the chief cause of people becoming lazy and expecting to be taken care of. I do agree that people ‘will do as little as seems necessary to obtain their goals’, but this actually makes MY argument stronger. Nock called this Epstean’s Law, or the iron law of fundamental economics: that “man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion.” Those needs and desires include security - and under an anarchic system, I am convinced that this incentive would lead to a more self reliant people, as a general rule. Those people who grew too lazy, did not obtain the proper insurance, or failed in their responsibility to take the defense of self, family and community seriously, would certainly have a difficult time of it, and would no doubt serve as constant reminders for the rest.
You also seem to be equating ‘imprtial thrid parties’ with government, though it is not clear from your post that this is the case - but the context supports this interpretation. I would take this as a sign that you have not done much reading about anarcho-capitalist ideas for establishing precisely such entities outside the sphere of government.
In short, I understand your argument, and it is one that I at one time shared, but that was a long time ago, and continued research and investigation has convinced me that it is simply ill founded. Perhaps your continued exploration will yield the same outcome at some point.
