Nope. Having a document as a backbone is an important element of stability.
Lately I see the same in BTC arguments about block size or high fees. That not changing the protocol on a whim is a strength. For a government’s constitution it’s the same.
Glad someone brought BTC up. Indeed we have agreed on a constitution. Change is possible but there are core aspects that have become non negotiable.
Having a core set of rules does not mean the rules are good though. We could stick to FIAT… why invent new core rules with BTC?
I agree. The idea of a set of core rules designed to provide stability is essential.
Government constitutions are more like Ethereum rules than Bitcoin, because the former are quite centralised.
ALL governments routinely change or “legally” circumvent their constitutions on a whim, and those who disagree, can neither stop that or fork off, as Americans showed with their secession war, along with many other examples elsewhere.
Absolutely, but my basic argument still holds. Governments should treat their constitutions as if there were immutable (but amendable with great difficulty and high consensus). “Should” unfortunately doesn’t mean “do”.
