Hello again fellow blades Let me first preface by saying I would consider a society of Constitutionalism a substantial improvement from what we are experiencing in the here and now; and the reason for this thread is not to attack the Constitution but to examine a common defense I tend to come across when promoting a Stateless society over that of a constitutional central government. I maintain, and I think history demonstrates this rather clearly, that the US Constitution is ultimately insufficient in its supposed purpose of suppressing the size, scope, and power of the State. It seems to me, in fact, it has ultimately had the exact opposite effect--the State which has emerged from our Constitution has become, quite arguably, the largest, most powerful State in the history of mankind; and it continues to grow with no foreseeable end in sight. In retrospect, of course, this result is far too common under similar circumstances--smaller governments and/or freer markets pave the way to prosperity and substantial wealth creation which in turn creates a larger pool of taxable income which the State parasitically feeds off of to expand itself and support its ecosystem of special interests. Empire, tyranny, and eventual collapse are always the result. It is said that the framers set out to attempt to avoid this by endeavoring to establish the smallest, most impotent government yet to exist; unfortunately it seems that even their supposed most limited constitutional government could not circumvent the inevitable outcome of statism. The anti-federalist papers warned of this. Thus, it seems to me (setting aside other arguments against the State for the time being) that even under the strictures of a constitution, the State will proceed as it always does; so then it follows that returning to a constitutional government in order to achieve the liberty that we yearn for so deeply is rather misguided. Now, when I present this type of argument to those who might identify as constitutional minarchists, I often get a response that shifts blame to the people: saying that it is the people who have failed to hold government officials accountable, and that it is the people who have failed to uphold their oaths of office, and that it is the people who have failed to vote according to the Constitution; if people would just follow the Constitution, constitutional government would work as intended and keep the State suppressed. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll set aside the fact that this does not even begin to address the disregard for the inherent monopolization of violence and coercion that must necessarily accompany the State, even within a constitutional government. Curiously enough, when I attempt to make a case for a Stateless society, a voluntaryist society, this argument concerning the failure of the people is used in opposition of the idea of a voluntaryist, Stateless society. How is this inconsistency to be reconciled? On one hand, it is suggested we rely on the people to follow and uphold the Constitution to ensure that a constitutional government works, but on the other hand we cannot rely in the same way, on the same people, to achieve a working Stateless society? Another inconsistency lies with the general premise behind the idea of small government. It is suggested that the smaller the government, the greater both the liberty and prosperity of the people. As I understand it, this tends to hold relatively true, as history demonstrates. So if less government means more liberty and more prosperity, how does it not follow that maximum liberty and maximum prosperity do not exclusively emerge in absence of government?