And where is the Constitution which enumerate the powers for the government (police and judiciary activities and no other), and left all the rights in the hand of the people. I never saw a Constitution like that, so it was never done. Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry would do that I am sure, but not all the founding fathers was like . There was also there. That was the problem; the Constitution was the best what it could be reached at the moment, and not what it should be. Now the question is how to write and adopt a “perfect” Constitution in an imperfect world. Unfortunately I don’t know the answer.
The only problem that I truly fear in the Constitution is the “Necessary and Proper” clause. It can be used in any way imaginable for a few people to take advantage of over the many. Thomas Jefferson, when he got into office, was not the champion of states over federal rights as he was pre 1800, because, when someone gets into power, and when in a way people “bought” their power with votes, they believe they have a mandate from the people to do what they feel like. I like the Constitution, I believe that the Federal branch has grown too powerful and that it should be the equal of the states in a Union. I sense many people here are anarchists or “minarchists”, but the only thing that rises from anarchy throught history has been tyrants, war and oppression. The Constitution, love it or hate it, is both our best friend and if there are no people who believe and stand up for the natural rights, then, it will be our worst enemy.
You forget that the Constitution represented an overthrow of the existing (legitimate) government established by the AoC. The AoC was much closer to what you seek than the Constitution. And the powers that be could not tolerate that for more than a decade. Why do you think things would be different today with the Constitution you are proposing, which seems to me to have quite a lot more federal power than the AoC did, which did not, as I recall assign police powers to the Feds.
Considering I’m not an American… Why should I care what your constitution says?
The AoC was utilitarianly more acceptable to we libertarians than the Constitution, yes, but it was also not without it’s flaws.
I absolutely agree. Additionally, you can go back to the DoI, which was probably the purest expression of libertarian principles to allegedly serve as the basis for a governing philosophy - only when it came time to actually establish a government, those principles - notably the twin doctrines of popular sovereignty and natural rights - did not serve the purposes that those creating the government wished. So even the AoC implemented a State (positive interventions) rather than a government (negative interventions) as desired by the DoI.
In short, I do not think that there exists anywhere in modern history an example of anything closer to libertarian principles than the AoC, which was flawed, but not nearly so much as the Constitution. At the least, one would have the option of moving from state to state, and competition for citizens would work in our favor, instead of all citizens being locked into one nation, from which expatriation is substantially more difficult.