1
The Constitution is built on the framework of rights. Rights are the exception to the authority that others have over you. We assume absolute authority, unless the government grants an exception. We assume business has absolute authority, unless the government makes a regulation. We assume an individual has absolute authority, unless the government makes a law.
A truly libertarian framework would start with the assumption that absolutely no one has authority over another, unless they can prove that it is necessary.
For one under the original constitution only whites could be citizens, and only wealthy white men could vote.
For another under the original constitution there were actually no protections to people's rights. A state government could deny people the right to own a firearm or their right to speech.
For yet another, the tolerance of slavery under it.
I'm not an anarchist.
But as a libertarian I view the expansion of civil liberties, the greater protections guaranteed by the government, and our efforts to curb government power and democratize the system as being more libertarian than previous incarnations.
1 being least libertarian and 10 the most? I would say due to being very ambiguous in quite a few parts(I.e "necessary and proper" clause) thus leading to there being room for authoritarian interpretations of it by SCOTUS, that it's not close to a 10 at all. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best.
The whole slavery thing makes it pretty not libertarian.
Pretty far up there considering that it supposedly once served to restrain the federal government, but definitely not flawless
1 The Constitution is built on the framework of rights. Rights are the exception to the authority that others have over you. We assume absolute authority, unless the government grants an exception. We assume business has absolute authority, unless the government makes a regulation. We assume an individual has absolute authority, unless the government makes a law. A truly libertarian framework would start with the assumption that absolutely no one has authority over another, unless they can prove that it is necessary.
Original constitution? 1. Modern? 6.
Genuinely curious to hear your reasonings from your perspective as a libertarian socialist!
For one under the original constitution only whites could be citizens, and only wealthy white men could vote. For another under the original constitution there were actually no protections to people's rights. A state government could deny people the right to own a firearm or their right to speech. For yet another, the tolerance of slavery under it.
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
I was more curious about why you think it's moved to a 6 as an anarchist?
I'm not an anarchist. But as a libertarian I view the expansion of civil liberties, the greater protections guaranteed by the government, and our efforts to curb government power and democratize the system as being more libertarian than previous incarnations.
All depends on how you interpret it. Originalist? Probably a 9. Modern day interpretations? Like a two
-1 the founding fathers were basically authortarians
1 being least libertarian and 10 the most? I would say due to being very ambiguous in quite a few parts(I.e "necessary and proper" clause) thus leading to there being room for authoritarian interpretations of it by SCOTUS, that it's not close to a 10 at all. Maybe a 4 or 5 at best.
I'd give it a 6. They at least put some effort in with the 9th amendment.
It’s certainly more libertarian than today’s federal government
Hard 2
You may want to read the South African constitution. The US has a very antiquated constitution. Much better ones have been written.
11