Source: Twitter X

Political systems that require consent from large numbers tend to fail at political choice with regularity – especially as a government ages. (most governments outside of the usa and the uk are ‘new’ by comparison.) So read James Burnham to understand that, and Hoppe to understand why modern governments without monarchies tend to fail (deterministically will fail).
Natural law isn’t an opinion it’s the science.
A constitution of natural law isn’t a philosophy it’s a science.
A government under natural law is scientific.
Meaning that all political questions are decidable one way or another (and the left is just criminal).
The changes over the past 200+ years have exposed holes in our constitutions both written (usa, aus) and unwritten (uk). But those holes are small in number and can easily be plugged and constitution, law, and policy corrected. Even though plugging that small number of holes will have vast consequences given how many ‘exploits’ were possible because of those few holes.
If you have nearly any system of choice (government) under natural law (sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) a judiciary limited to the law, and a ‘judge of last resort’ that is above the law in the restoration of the law, a populace with an IQ of at least 100, and an armed populace, then you have ‘perfect government’. Or at least, as perfect as can be imagined.
Now, there are other requirements such as radical reform of the financial system and the govt role in strategic industry development (which used to happen via our military), as well as restoring competition to education, etc. My primary contribution in the end is just ‘truth in everything’ which results in ‘the science’ in everything.
Once that’s the case, then the only thing we can do is trade. We cant use the government to steal from one another.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @VeritateIn