We could just have a constitution of how freedoms can be forfeited from an individual and if the government ignores it then civil unrest could resolve it since they would be facing an armed populace

Who enforces that? Another group of elected/appointed officials?

Yeah basically

The elected don't really have an incentive to handicap themselves

Someone else must do it

The people would have to enforce it if the government breaks those rules @Drywa11

who watches the watchers?
the watched

But what if those rules weren't installed in the first place?

Who installs it, and how?

Well in current society we could simply have a slow reform to it

I don't know, it doesn't seem to be happening

Reduced Laws and reduced government power, Increased Personal freedom can all be introduced overtime

Doing it all within a matter of days would of course not work

I'm actually concerned it will never happen if slow reform is the only valid option

Well it would be the only proper way

Why?

Imagine what would happen in the US if the government want from managing many things to just maintaining law and order

If the elected infringe on the rules, don't we have the right to stop them using force?

Yes

Civil unrest from an armed populace would prevent the officials from breaking the rules of the constitution

If public opinion is the only thing ultimately protecting against tyranny, then wouldn’t it be easier to limit a firm/individual than a government that is given the legitimacy to do things others aren’t allowed to?

So if the rules that would allow a civil uprising in case of rulebreaking don't exist yet, but we want them to exist, then we can't rise with force because the rules aren't in place yet, etc... it's a perpetual cycle

How do you mean? @Drywa11 I don't really understand your point.

I'll just give HK as an example

You don't need a rule in place for it at the start

The youth over there are fighting for democracy and direct rulership

They know that if China takes over in their lifetime (and that is a written agreement), it'll be game over for freedom

So what can they do besides using force to prevent this?

Wouldn’t ten agencies doing a governments work be easier to limit by the populace than one agency doing it all?

I am saying that the rules that could allow civil unrest to prevent tyranny could be brought in through a slow reform if a Libertarian Government ever took power

There's nothing, the status quo would just end freedom, by use of force or not

What if libertarians don't get into power because the democratic process is a matter of interests, not morals?

I'm sure you know justice is not a matter of interests, but ethics

@Drywa11 The agency would be the government, The Governments only job would be to maintain a justice system

(or rather should be)

@ETBrooD Well that would be a debate over the current system and not a Libertarian one

That's my point

The current system makes libertarianism impossible

I am arguing about how a system could work if the Libertarian's took power

Because the voting process is not about societal ethics, it's about personal interests

Not how they could take power