Exactly. It was a failure. Its language was perhaps about as good as any other language that could be dreamed-up, but it was alas, as fallible as the constitutions of all the many other republics that have come and gone.

You can take any form of government you like – whether based on capitalism, socialism or communism – or democracy, monarchy or republic – and the one invariable thing that has happened to every one of them is that their political ideals were corrupted by improper influence over the political process by those who had the economic means to control the police force and other incidental branches in order to privatize profits and socialize losses through a legal looting process.

The whole "checks and balances" thing is a myth. Sufficient wealth in the hands of a few has proven capable in every instance of controlling each branch and making each work in unison with the other toward a corrupted aim.

All have ended in revolution.

I was surprised to see that comment of yours. You are one of the few who seem to see the same flaw in the design of our government. With the flaw recognized, I still see no remedy for it – except either through revolution or short-term band-aids at the polls.

Despite the fact we see the same flaw, you might disagree with my observations concerning the internal problems created by wealth inequality. You may be of the "Libertarian" persuasion which would hold that "legally" procured wealth is an inviolate right. However, in that case, I would note that true Libertarianism has never been practiced anywhere, and is itself, a dream – just as is socialism, democracy and communism. All have merit in pure theory. None work. All are equally prone to internal corruption. In the end, whatever "ism" you want to discuss, the issue is between those who have the power to control, and those who do not. Invariably, it boils down even more crudely to "haves" vs. "have nots" and greed.

Thanks for that previous post of yours….

As for your investment example, do you not see the error of conflating an actual voluntary contract between people of real property? In such a case, even without "positive law", those involved have the natural right to be made whole if I have acted fraudulently by not following through on a contract. This though is where legitimate government may act, by bringing about justice, not by enacting laws that privilege one group against another, or forcing participation where no one has consented to such. If I opt out of a political system no one is defrauded, no one has their property or person harmed, and no one is hindered by my actions to continue exercising their rights. Even then YOUR contractual rights are predicated on the legitimacy of a government defining such rights, and so you rely on positive law to argue natural law.

The process I desire is the persuasion one. I can only hope to influence enough people to do right, that they may be virtuous people, and that after our current system breaks apart due to hubris, that in the aftermath some may choose a wiser and more liberty based government. Let's be honest, the US constitution was a spectacular failure, and were it not for our continual ability to expand our frontiers it would have ended sooner, but even then, how long until such things as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first national bank, the militia act forcing people to buy arms, the "Seaman Act", forcing people to buy health care,Jefferson's embargo among others. And surely Lincoln and the Reconstruction Congresses threw away the US constitution when they forced people to submit to a government they no longer desired to participate in. Indeed the US constitution was formed by asserting the natural right to establish a government best designed to promote liberty, or do you see something in the Articles of Confederation permitting anything less than unanimous approval, not 9 out of 13?

While I understand that practically I must do certain things, that doesn't mean there is a legitimacy to any government where a certain number have said they have a right to control my decisions to enact their agenda, such as taxing me to provide a school system for others, or provide health care, or what have one. So, no I am not going to advocate a revolt, because frankly too many are either idiots, or have enough modern day Bread and Circuses (TV and beer) to not care, but I will try to educate enough people so that in the aftermath of our collapse, there will be some governments that arise that have a higher regard for liberty.

There are very important contractual principals going on in this equation. I bet you live in a school district and it is funded in part by your taxes. Well, if you don't like the way it's being run, you can't just opt out and leave – that is, unless you want to go to another school district and be beholden to it. Of course, the right to vote with your feet means to go to another jurisdiction. In the case of the United States' jurisdiction, your right to opt out means you can go to somewhere else – say Britain, Mexico, or whatever. But if you're going to stay, you're going to play and you're going to pay. That's the basis of every political system. Nobody gets to just "opt out" – unless they have the others' consent or the power to defeat "the management."

There are only three processes I have seen used in history to any success of your desired "opt out" right. (1) change the system at the polls or by persuasion, (2) successfully revolt and overthrow the existing establishment, or (3) disobey and not get caught or unduly punished.

Sometimes, the system does not take well to #1 and #3, and the only means left is #2.

It's not a mistaken belief, and that a principal is higher than an agent, and it's an error to say that no one or no body would ever choose to be agent were that the case. I am merely or a state is merely choosing to have someone else act for me out of convenience or because it's beneficial to do so. If I or a state can do such a thing better, than of course I or the state has the right to at any time withdraw what it DELEGATED. As far the agent is concerned, on a personal level that agent can make sure that they do their job well and won't be dismissed, and that as far as remuneration that is written into the contract. On a governmental level, doing the job well also applies, but then there is the truth that no one just overnight chooses to drop out, but even then..AGAIN..how would the principal/state be obligated? Was there an exchange of property, was something taken from other parties that needs to be restored?

If, for example, my agent acts under the agreement that he purchase only "high quality" ore, a dispute can arise when he buys ore of a certain quality about which we disagree. His contention is he purchased "high grade" ore. Mine is that he did not. Which of us gets to decide whether there is a breach?

It would be easy to suggest that, as principal, I can terminate the agency at will. However, agencies are creatures of contract, and the term of their existence is also specified by contract. In the case of constitutional law, it is generally accepted that all members who voluntarily consent to form a political body do so in perpetuity, unless the contract states otherwise. For example, your home owners' association may or may not specify how long it lasts, and unless some law otherwise prohibits it from lasting forever (or until all the parties consent to disband it), it will last forever.

Political bodies are not terminable at will because of a very important reason. While you might want to terminate, the other members entered into the commitment based on your commitment as well. The HOA is not going to contribute all its members' contributions to building and maintaining a club-house or golf course, only to have you exit after they build it – leaving the others to have to maintain it, while you continue to enjoy the benefit without paying for it.

So, if you assume that the principal/agent relationship is not terminable at will, and there is a dispute between principal and agent, nothing in the law holds that the principal may declare the agent in breach at his mere whim and dictate what remedy is owed to him at the same whim.

So, in that scenario, you can see that it is a mistaken belief to think that a principal is "higher" than the agent and thus, always is afforded the final say. If that was the law, then no agent would ever agree to be an agent. It would render the agent at the complete mercy of the whim of the principal.

The answer to your question depends upon which of these concepts you feel to be more appropriate to achieve justice.

You can't tell me that this natural state doesn't exist since we enter and leave political societies all the time. I leave one state and enter another but where I cross there is a moment where neither laws of either state exist. You can think of this as the shared border that exist between leaving one political society and entering the other. That in between space is where I am immune for ether political authority and I exist naturally. My thoughts go where I want and my actions follow because there is no authority that can tell me otherwise. For that reason–it exists and the only law that governs me is the one that is based on my own reason. It is what Locke said in that the law of nature is the law of reason. It is our reason that governs us in that state. It decides our actions to take.

I do not believe that we lose this natural state from us. It may be repressed from us but it is always there ready to come out at any time. It exists and because it does the law has no real right to govern our actions but it is needed for a single purpose in that we need an authority to protect our person from others because without this man-made authority we would have no ability to settle grievances with others peacefully and no ability to live orderly lives that our reason dictates.

There was a time when judges used natural law as the guide to their decisions but that law was based on rational thought. It weighed both sides, not by the law, but by the law of reason which happen to be the law of nature (or natural law). It assumed that the participants in society should obey what their rational thoughts dictated and anyone who didn't was found to be the guilty party. It expected people to behave rationally towards one another.

The law only had force when people violated the natural law of reason since as Jefferson said that both the laws of earth and nature were on equal stations (bad paraphrasing but that is what he said in the declaration of independence).

Let's say—

13 homeowners (the principals) enter into a contract (the Constitution is a compact or contract).

They create and empower an agent to perform limited functions via the contract.

Those functions pertain to the external operation of each home.

The right and power to control the internal operation of each home is retained by the principals.

The agent usurps that limited grant of power and uses it to intrude into the internal operation of each home.

What happens next?

Do the principals have the right and power, by the nature of contract law, to nullify the usurpation irrespective of whether that right and power is specifically enumerated in the contract or are they required to petition the agent for redress of the usurpation?