> It is strange that libertarians - who should have a grasp of the nature
> of spontaneous orders and the nature of civil society - should somehow
> see an unwritten constitution - like Britain's as somehow less real or
> effective than a written one.
How long do you think the RKBA would have lasted in America without the
Bill of Rights? How would the CDA have been defeated without the First
Amendment? The advantage of a written constitution is that you have a
specific set of restrictions on government that you can point to when they
get out of line. It may not prevent abuse, but it's a good start.
> What is written in a constitution (eg the
> quite liberal constitution of the old USSR, or the current US
> constitution for that matter) is far less important in
> creating/preserving liberty than the constituion of society itself.
I agree, but a written constitution provides a lot more protection against
the mob when they're out for blood. Compare the latest Supreme Court
judgements to the banning of all handguns and proposed ban on all rifles
over .22 in Britain.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|