Having a constitution or not rests on the idea that you can set certain principles out without being able to predict everything that might happen. And that is why it is different from legal codes. The legal codes are set to implement the principles as mandated by the constitution but the constitution need not know exactly how do it, only that it should be done, and ideally that it can be done, somehow.
If some folks diverge in fundamental areas then I say some folks don't have to sign it or be a party to it or it's authority. It can only has authority by agreement or coercion, and if we say we will not apply forceful membership of a constitutional community then that leaves only agreement.
I see a problem when, having voluntarily agreed, someone feels it is no longer in their interest to agree any more. I think entering and exiting the agreement must be by free choice but what then of someone who does something prohibited by the constitution and does not want to be subject to the constitutionally or legally laid out consequences? That needs to be thought of too, and I don't say it's unsolvable, but that's one of the biggest problems I see to it.
Consider seriously for a moment the idea of being bound by your own agreements, by force if necessary. Could you agree to that?
That's really the only kind I'm willing, and totally willing, to be bound by. Why the hell should I agree to be bound by an agreement I didn't make?
Well, this is also a reason for personal codes. If you change your mind, you can change your code, and no one else can stop you.
However, being a party to an agreement and violating it, and THEN changing the rules you agree to so that you wouldn't be punishable is an ex post facto modification, which shouldn't be upheld by just courts.
I reckon international law is a pretty good model for interpersonal interactions in a society based on personal codes. IANAL, but my light exposure to it indicates to me that it is far more egalitarian than national codes.
Such changes would modify interpersonal agreements, and potentially require renegotiation of them, but that's better than crime, or war.
I see personal codes working to allow people to decide who, where, how and why they'll interact with others, say coming over to your house to have dinner.
If you have a rule that everyone on your property has to smoke, or drink tequila, I'm gonna refrain from the visit. It's your place, and you have a right to establish such rules, but I may not wanna smoke, or drink, or whatever.
Perhaps your business is under a code that mandates a certain type of court, or arbitration, or tax, that I'm unwilling to bear. I won't do business with you on those terms, or we might negotiate exceptions. Stuff like that.
Thanks!
What have you got against smoking and tequila!? 😉
Let's take the visit to the authoritarian hedonists property as an example. What if I don't agree that they have the right to that property? Or in the idea that I may be forced to smoke or drink by anyone? That anyone may "have a right to establish such rules" is not a given and I may enter the property without that knowledge. It would be very tedious indeed to have to review the terms for any movement from this location to that on the earth, and it would be unethical to not present those terms if they are under debate.
I see a constitution as a move towards sensibleness in these kinds of arrangements. But then again, it will only take one dramatic incident on this lunatic's property for the word to get out about them (assuming the visitor survives the event). So there's that too.
I see your points. But I will highlight that a personal code is no contract as a contract must have at least two signatories. Otherwise I think it is better understood as an oath made to the rest of humanity, as the rest of humanity had no chance to review it. In a sense it becomes quite useless except in these regards:
However without any convention on these oaths they are possibly so much mumbo-jumbo, open to various interpretation and misunderstanding. I'd be interested to find out a way to at least stick to some definitions, i.e. I can understand what you mean when you say X, if not a shared constitution.
I have the sense that you keep wishing to end the conversation but I have other intentions friend 😜
EDIT
Like you editing that post after I replied? Lol, seriously though, that could happen too.
Perhaps law does not need a constitutional basis on which to operate but it does need some basis. I agree that it's a possible model, what basis would you see to justify it?