“It doesn’t work (the unconstrained version) because human nature is inherently the constrained version, not the unconstrained version. “
It doesn’t work because of its consequences (bad), not because human nature is “constrained”.
What do we mean by something “working”? Something works if using it gives the intended results. It has nothing to do with constrained vs unconstrained nature.
And no one is wholly constrained or unconstrained. We all have some of both with some at the extremes. It’s what politics is all about - coming up with the right balance between societal desire for change (unconstrained) vs the comfort of the status quo (constraint). It’s a constant battle between the two - radicalism vs conservatism. Always has been and always will be because of differences in human nature.
When I said something is "not working" it means to me that the efforts of "unconstrained" people and politicians produces results that are NOT in concordance with the principles of the US Constitution.
So, to people who are predominately "unconstrained" (the Left in general and the Democrat party in particular) they do not produce "results" within the constraints of the US Constitution, so that is what I am referring to.
And that has everything to do with a "constrained" versus an "unconstrained" viewpoint.
There are indeed differences in human behavior. And it is unequivocally clear from the results of at least a century that the difference which is referred to as unconstrained does not "work", and it has been proven over and over again not to "work".