Not a fan of current politicians then

To be fair to Greece and Spain the politicians in the UK have hardly painted themselves in glory

Back on topic though, how do people feel about constitutions?

"of the most prosperous nation the Earth has ever been home to"

Define prosperous?

Legatum Prosperity Index

http://www.prosperity.com/rankings.aspx

Constitutions are horrible, and the United States is a perfect example of why. No matter how much you try to limit the government's scope and function, it will /always/ find a way to circumvent its limitations. Government is a parasite, mandated by its very nature to manufacture laws and increase its foothold over its citizens through extortion and even outright murder. It drains the most productive members of society, and encourages the impoverished to remain in their relative state of abject squalor, through the redistribution of wealth under the specious banner of helping your fellow man.

Robert LeFevre wrote a beautiful piece in 1959 called "The Nature of Man and His Government", which served as one of the catalysts in my personal transformation into a full-blooded anarcho-capitalist of the Austrian persuasion (although LeFevre himself preferred to be identified as an autarchist).

People used to function with barely any government interference in their lives. And government didn't have to tell them how to survive. We never died out.

"would not an enlightened..." ?? Just use a contraction, your point isnt bolstered by a Dickens-esque attempt at sentence structure you douche.

Kemp: The operative phrase in that thought of yours was "used to."  Do you really believe that a form of government that worked for native american tribes or the early settlers would work for nearly 350 million human beings?  Times, demographics, and needs change.  Adapt.

People are, at their core, semi-retarded animals with no concept of the greater good.  If you decide to poop out another constitution, be sure to include a clause that limits the number of children to 1/2

allow regulated monopolies is my opinion.

if any monopoly is allowed at some time there can be a product that can be monopolised by 1 company without them having to work for ti. just buying or breaking new companies.

therefor a pure monopoly no.

one that is temporarely that can only be renewed by enough enovation to the product or redesigning the product to something better promotes R&D and therefore makes the company work for it( so they more or less deserve it) and even then there will always be slipups/company leaks/ etc. so no monopoly can last forever since the larger trees catch more wind everybody will be at their heels.

I say no to a complete ban on monopoly since having that as a company founder can be a huge motivation and some thing might never come to life if there is no chance of gaining a monopoly with it even if it's a temorary one.

>>Times, demographics, and needs change.  Adapt.<<

That's the same explanation progressives give for our "inevitable" move to socialism. It's based upon false premises, but that doesn't stop people from making any number of claims with this explanation. People are perfectly capable of adapting on their own. They've done so for millions of years. They don't suddenly need you and your bright ideas to protect them from themselves. I looked it up. They really don't.

It is true that many things have changed. And there have been abuses left unchecked in the past that I'm not arguing should be left unchecked again. But this is a legitimate basis for new, smarter laws and law enforcement. People aren't inherently more of babies as you argue. They're only that way if that is what you actively make them. I agree that we should have laws and law enforcement that should actually serve us and not serve the interest of established business in stifling innovation by massively increasing start-up costs. I do not agree that, because the world's population has grown, they're inherently babies.

>>People are, at their core, semi-retarded animals with no concept of the greater good.<<

Which is precisely why it is bad to give these semi-retarded animals massive power over one another. Without massive government (increasing the cost of living and lowering the standard of living for everyone as a bonus), no semi-retarded animal can do monumental harm to his fellow man. Thank you for making my point for me. Everyone deserves all the best things they can attain for themselves in this world. (Not at the expense of wronging others. I'm a fan of reasonable laws and law enforcement.) It only hurts everyone to take what they attain for themselves. Well balanced children are taught not to take things that are not theirs. Now if only we could educate some adults and make them more well balanced people, less untaught children.

Edit: In case it's over anyone's head, all of this is exactly why [a small part of, anyway] the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was, with limitations of powers and checks and balances. The Founders of the United States of America didn't limit the power of the government they were creating because they couldn't have abused unlimited power and increased their wealth: They limited its power because they were educated men actually acting in the best interests of their people. They were scared shitless and knew that what they were doing was going to be very important for a lot of people for a long time, if they succeeded. They crafted this document with all of the abuses of their present world and knowledge of history in mind. A knowledge that isn't as spotty and willfully ignorant as the knowledge of many supposedly learned men today.

I think creating the government of a people that rose from a collection of immigrants to the sole superpower on planet Earth was a success. While I'm all about catching abuses that weren't always caught in the past, I think an educated man must be capable of looking at the success of the US Constitution and learning from it. I believe that to attack such a document as unjust because it doesn't give government the power to enforce "social justice" without being able to learn anything from it is rather ignorant. The US constitution doesn't allow the government to claim ownership of everything and everyone, which is what "social justice" requires of a government. I believe this was a good decision. Enjoy being a subject. I enjoy being a citizen.

I don't call myself a libertarian, nor do I have a simple answer for your question. While I agree with their principles of freedom and getting off my nuts, I have various strong disagreements with the positions of the Libertarian party. I'm aware of monopolies' detrimental effects.

Such cases as Microsoft forcing manufacturers to purchase overpriced software bundles (Windows is notoriously inefficient, garbage programming, and anyone who thinks it's coded well is as ignorant as Apple freaks. ) get complicated because of the particulars of the software industry and the necessity of compatibility in being functional for most any purpose.

So yeah I'm against monopolies. But I'm also against the sort of laws that Washington is capable of making today, which are incapable of managing the particulars of industries without causing massive harm. Against monopolies and supportive of appropriate and measured government action where appropriate, but skeptical of government action--as we all should be.

A good Constitution is the basis for reasonable law. A bad constitution is the basis for being a slave to the state.

the best constitution is one that is left so open to interpretation that it can be whatever you need it to be.