for readers:
you might want to read some history to discover if this person’s conclusions are remotely accurate.
anarchism need not be based on shallow a-historical analysis
#FreedomPoll
#AskNostr
#1k sats for every repost!
——
The Magna Carta (1215 - 1217) was
“The first written constitution in European history that established rights of any kind.”
https://everything-everywhere.com/the-magna-carta/
It was drafted by nobles (with guns of their own) to protect themselves and their property from abuses by The Monarch.
This “first constitution” had nothing to do with “human rights” as we know them. It established protections for the privileged class BY permitting the monarch to STILL have absolute power over all others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
This same pattern is prevalent throughout the history of constitutions. People with guns and power (over people) negotiating with each other to preserve these.
Today, constitutions are seen as documents protecting human rights. In truth, they are documents outlining the “rules” (laws) by which power (over people) may be wielded. In this way, constitutions guarantee the existence of (an ever expanding and centralized) government by asserting it’s role as “law”.
——
My questions for freedom lovers:
Could society (at large) still function without a centralized “rules of governance”?
What would be the “minimum human rights” agreement needed for such a society (of many freedom respecting governments) to thrive?
Discussion
I’m more interested in asking questions. Because truth is relative, and everyone has a valid perspective. Do you have answers of your own? Love to hear. TX
