3 ms·

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

by 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.

by mc32 5y ago

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.