3 ms·

The Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution did exclude many people, but the disenfranchised groups appealed to those documents to demand their own rights. It's n

The Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution did exclude many people, but the disenfranchised groups appealed to those documents to demand their own rights. It's not as if the rights of those groups were respected before the Magna Carta or the Constitution, so it's strange to say the Magna Carta "messed up the world". In general Chomsky is an example of someone who makes big contributions to specific field but has terrible judgement. Quoting the article: 'To be sure, the reach of the charter was limited. Nevertheless, as Eric Kasper observes in a scholarly review, “What began as a relatively small check on the arbitrary power of King John eventually led to succeeding generations finding ever more rights in Magna Carta and Article 39. In this sense, Magna Carta is a key point in a long development of the protection of rights against arbitrary executive power.” Crossing the Atlantic, the Great Charter was enshrined in the US Constitution as the promise that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The wording seems expansive, but that is misleading. Excluded were “unpeople” (to borrow Orwell’s useful concept), among them Native Americans, slaves and women, who under the British common law adopted by the founders were the property of their fathers, handed over to husbands. Indeed, it wasn’t until 1975 that women gained the right to serve on juries in all fifty states.'

mc32 5y ago
If the magna carta messed up "the world" it would have messed up the one under English influence --that is, not France and not Russia and not Japan and not the Middle East. Yet, there don't seem to have been greater progress in those areas where the Magna Carta had no influence. so I agree Chomsky here is full of baloney. Indeed, I think the Magna Carta afforded people the language and tools to climb out from under the power of kings/crown and state. Obviously it took centuries of incremental improvement.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  If you read the article Chomsky does not say that the Magna Carta is the cause of all the issues, but it didn't prevent it. Also I would argue that there are significant portions of the world that actually have better progress in some areas that he is alluding to.
  - mc32 5y ago
    >but it didn't prevent it. It's a bit much to expect an 800+ year old document to prevent future problems. It has taken centuries of accretion to get to where we are. "there are significant portions of the world..." That's a comparison in one-dimension. Where are they in other areas? What will be the result when they have greater pressures for development (compare Venezuela).
- dmix 5y ago
  > Magna Carta afforded people the language and tools to climb out from under the power of kings/crown and state. That was the whole point of Magna Carta. Chomsky seems to be greatly expanded the intended scope of the document, or maybe he just means the later interpretation. But regardless even the original goals was a great step forward for civilization at the time, especially for something from the 1200s. This was long after the experiments in democracy in Greece and Rome were forgotten and feudalism was all the people in western culture knew. Combined with the fear of invading foreign barbarians constantly pushed by local churches in England at the time. It was never really about ordinary citizens gaining franchise and power (especially not peasants), instead it was about preventing despots from being rulers. That's something every system battles with, even today. It was only later on over centuries that the Magna Carta evolved into an abstract concept representing individual liberty, rather than the specific document which only defined the roles of the monarch and barons. And that was largely a result of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of Greek/Roman culture coming back into vogue after the 1600s.
dotsam 5y ago
> In general Chomsky is an example of someone who makes big contributions to specific field but has terrible judgement Chomsky has made contributions to multiple fields, not just a specific field, and he is one of the most cited living scholars. I think that on a scale of good judgement to terrible judgement, he would be nearer to the good than the terrible in multiple areas.
- gxs 5y ago
  I’m with you but I get OPs point that it’s a fallacy to assume competence in one or many fields automatically translates to others. Agree of Chomsky’s contributions, but also think he is over quoted and taken too seriously where he shouldn’t. That said, still making up my mind about this particular instance.
gip 5y ago
The Magna Carta not only singled out Jews, but also benefited a very very small part of the population of that time - according to some scholars as little as 10 people in England! Other scholars disagree on the figure but it is clear that most of the population was not included, by far. The Magna Carta was the birth certificate of what today we call the one percent. I do not think we should celebrate.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  The difference was that before it it was 1 person, the King. After it was 10. There are some today would would agree with you (in a way) and that royalty should never have compromised! Others see that where the magna carta never happened, that the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the terrors of both events as something to celebrate. Me, I think the magna carta lead to less terror.
shireboy 5y ago
Agree. I mean, far be it from me to disagree with the likes of Chomsky, but the gist of his argument seems to be "the Magna Carta and US Constitution didn't immediately cure all injustices, therefore it messed up the world." His utopian view of the Forest Charter and idea of The Commons seems to gloss over similar injustices in the 1200s. Were there not slaves and unfair treatment of women in the 1200s? Under Feudalism? Can he really not see any examples of "force reigns supreme" prior to the Magna Carta? Taken at face value, is he arguing that we should give up completely and let <insert utopian organizer/enforcer of "The Commons"> deprive people of life, liberty and process without due process of law? For all the failings of America to immediately draw the logical conclusions arising from "no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", it nonetheless was those very concepts that ultimately _did_ play out to free slaves, grant more freedom and self-governance to more people than any other system in history, and continues to play out if imperfectly. One can imagine a world where those words were never written or strived for at all. _That world_ would be even more messed up, in my opinion.

mc32 5y ago

If the magna carta messed up "the world" it would have messed up the one under English influence --that is, not France and not Russia and not Japan and not the Middle East. Yet, there don't seem to have been greater progress in those areas where the Magna Carta had no influence. so I agree Chomsky here is full of baloney. Indeed, I think the Magna Carta afforded people the language and tools to climb out from under the power of kings/crown and state. Obviously it took centuries of incremental improvement.

cycomanic 5y ago
If you read the article Chomsky does not say that the Magna Carta is the cause of all the issues, but it didn't prevent it. Also I would argue that there are significant portions of the world that actually have better progress in some areas that he is alluding to.
- mc32 5y ago
  >but it didn't prevent it. It's a bit much to expect an 800+ year old document to prevent future problems. It has taken centuries of accretion to get to where we are. "there are significant portions of the world..." That's a comparison in one-dimension. Where are they in other areas? What will be the result when they have greater pressures for development (compare Venezuela).
dmix 5y ago
> Magna Carta afforded people the language and tools to climb out from under the power of kings/crown and state. That was the whole point of Magna Carta. Chomsky seems to be greatly expanded the intended scope of the document, or maybe he just means the later interpretation. But regardless even the original goals was a great step forward for civilization at the time, especially for something from the 1200s. This was long after the experiments in democracy in Greece and Rome were forgotten and feudalism was all the people in western culture knew. Combined with the fear of invading foreign barbarians constantly pushed by local churches in England at the time. It was never really about ordinary citizens gaining franchise and power (especially not peasants), instead it was about preventing despots from being rulers. That's something every system battles with, even today. It was only later on over centuries that the Magna Carta evolved into an abstract concept representing individual liberty, rather than the specific document which only defined the roles of the monarch and barons. And that was largely a result of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of Greek/Roman culture coming back into vogue after the 1600s.

dotsam 5y ago

> In general Chomsky is an example of someone who makes big contributions to specific field but has terrible judgement Chomsky has made contributions to multiple fields, not just a specific field, and he is one of the most cited living scholars. I think that on a scale of good judgement to terrible judgement, he would be nearer to the good than the terrible in multiple areas.

gxs 5y ago
I’m with you but I get OPs point that it’s a fallacy to assume competence in one or many fields automatically translates to others. Agree of Chomsky’s contributions, but also think he is over quoted and taken too seriously where he shouldn’t. That said, still making up my mind about this particular instance.

gip 5y ago

The Magna Carta not only singled out Jews, but also benefited a very very small part of the population of that time - according to some scholars as little as 10 people in England! Other scholars disagree on the figure but it is clear that most of the population was not included, by far. The Magna Carta was the birth certificate of what today we call the one percent. I do not think we should celebrate.

thinkingemote 5y ago
The difference was that before it it was 1 person, the King. After it was 10. There are some today would would agree with you (in a way) and that royalty should never have compromised! Others see that where the magna carta never happened, that the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the terrors of both events as something to celebrate. Me, I think the magna carta lead to less terror.

shireboy 5y ago

Agree. I mean, far be it from me to disagree with the likes of Chomsky, but the gist of his argument seems to be "the Magna Carta and US Constitution didn't immediately cure all injustices, therefore it messed up the world." His utopian view of the Forest Charter and idea of The Commons seems to gloss over similar injustices in the 1200s. Were there not slaves and unfair treatment of women in the 1200s? Under Feudalism? Can he really not see any examples of "force reigns supreme" prior to the Magna Carta? Taken at face value, is he arguing that we should give up completely and let <insert utopian organizer/enforcer of "The Commons"> deprive people of life, liberty and process without due process of law? For all the failings of America to immediately draw the logical conclusions arising from "no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", it nonetheless was those very concepts that ultimately _did_ play out to free slaves, grant more freedom and self-governance to more people than any other system in history, and continues to play out if imperfectly. One can imagine a world where those words were never written or strived for at all. _That world_ would be even more messed up, in my opinion.