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 im

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.