Well, I’ve actually thought about this. I wrote a somewhat lengthy article on the subject of law here… I am as averse to wishful thinking as you are but YMMV. My conclusion is that the nature of law - statutory or otherwise - is inherently conservative and resistant to sudden shocks and changes, as well it ought to be. Like you, I’d rather have the devil I know than simply throw the gates wide open to allow a mob of free market arbitrators to start re-writing the law code as they see fit.
But I look at law as a good produced on a market in the above article (though in a different way than most treatments of law I’ve read) and I believe that the market in law (common law, free market arbitration) has been atrophied by well over a century of State oppression, at least, in the West. Hence, any move away from the system of statutory law must start with the law as it is.
The obvious answer to progress is simple political disaggregation, that is, secession. And something like your proposed constitution could be of use in this, providing a framework for ever-smaller political units to look to as they face the problem of how to build their own local government that is consistent with the laws and norms to which they have long been accustomed.
If only… that’s what polycentric/free market law is all about. To each his own. Under the territorial monopolistic system of national statutory law we have today, there is no to each his own, there’s to each whatever the Powers That Be say there will be.
Clayton -