The other states also have the power to filibuster things they don't like. This is feature not a bug. We want to fail open (liberty). The way to do that is placing safeguards that make it harder to pass laws, as they are generally imposing restrictions. The passage of any law will negatively affect some minority, the point is to make that group small and avoid straight partisanship via a modest supermajority.
Yes, there are some outliers and discrepancy in the number a representative represents. It probably should be adjusted.
I hope it's uncontroversial that, say, blocking a bill to ban slavery is not "failing open," for example, and the persistent effort to prevent slavery from being banned led to many failures in liberty?
When your main bulwark is making it hard to pass bills, all you've really done is make it so that the status quo is powerful. The status quo is not, by default, freedom.
Yes, point in time the status quo may not be the most free. The point is that starting from a more free point (the beginning) there were fewer laws that there are now. By having g that protection, how many additional restrictive laws have we prevented? The laws on the books are predominately restrictions, not freedoms/rights. So on a whole, it seems beneficial, even if there have been failings (we can say that about almost any institution).
> how many additional restrictive laws have we prevented
I mean, we will never know. Any answer to this question can only be speculation. I could as easily ask "how many expansions of freedom have we prevented?" And in this moment of political time I think there are at least a few. But that's also just speculation.
In theory it's supposed to be the constitution itself that prevents these abuses, not the crude instrument of legislative gridlock that prevents all change good or bad, especially in a moment like now or before the civil war where the two dominant political forces can't even see eye to eye on basic structures of power.
Much like, to bring it back to the original point, the Senate is already an unrepresentative body, it does not need the procedural filibuster (a unique creature among legislatures as it exists in the us Senate afaik) to make it one.
The speculation is supported by the numbers - restrictive laws far outnumber rights affirming laws, and thus it would on the net prevent more restrictions than freedoms. Especially since the structure of law is that are not unlawful tend to be legal.
The constitution is supposed to restrict what abuses? There's basically nothing preventing further restrictions in freedoms on many topics. Because the constitution is generally vague and conceptual, the courts have a lot of leeway to allow restrictions, even on well defined rights (rights are not absolute). There's little interest in calling a convention or otherwise amending the constitution it seems.
The senate is a representative body, for the states. The filibuster ensures that controversial bills pass with more than a simple majority. This is a feature which helps ensure that the affected minority is relatively smaller, protects states rights (it's up to the states if the feds dont regulate in moat cases), and help prevents waffling after every election that changes the simple majority.
Yes, there are some outliers and discrepancy in the number a representative represents. It probably should be adjusted.