Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.
Optimally there would be a balance between stability and progress. After all, what’s the point in crafting a perfect society if a few decades later someone can come along and overturn all the principles that made it great, and convert it back into an oppressive system?
The problem with the US Constitution isn’t that it enshrined immutable human rights; the problem was that it took compliance for granted and didn’t build in enough safeguards for enforcement. Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to improve upon what’s already been done (such as making constitutional amendments), but it also needs to be permanent enough that the progress can’t simply be overturned.
The problem with anarchy is that there’s no guarantee that civility will be an enduring principle. There’s nothing in place to prevent a powerful individual with enough followers from installing a new oppressive regime.