This is precisely why - as an anarchist myself - I have never been very fond of what I will here call the "Spoonerist" critique of Constitutionalism shared by so many of my fellow anarchists. (By "'Spoonerist' critique," I should be taken as referring specifically and solely to Lysander Spooner's famous and oft-quoted line from The Constitution of No Authority: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." I should NOT be taken as addressing any of Spooner's many other cogent and excellent criticisms of the US Constitution.)
The Constitution of the United States of America ... the Communist Manifesto ... Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" ... each of these could be sourced as the "foundational" document or (statement of) principles for a society. But the "Spoonerist" critique could be applied with equal force to any of them, should the members of such a society fail (for whatever reason) to adequately implement or maintain the application of the doctrines embodied in the relevant document or (statement of) principles.
A stateless society based upon the Non-Aggression Principle could "devolve" into a statist society in which the state routinely violates the NAP - and the "Spoonerist" critique could then be invoked against the NAP (e.g., the NAP was "powerless to prevent" the devolution into statism). But I would reject such a critique of the NAP, because no (statement of) principles or document can be expected to implement or enforce itself. Thus, in order to be consistent, I must also reject such a critique when it is applied to Constitutionalism as well - and for the same reason.
IOW: The "Spoonerist" critique of Constitutionalism "proves too much." As Glen has properly noted, it is a blade that cuts both ways ...
