Avatar
ManiMe 2y ago

#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?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Majere 2y ago

It could but get a large enough group of people & they'll draft their own version of laws soon enough.

Avatar
ManiMe 2y ago

Yup

Avatar
SatsMan 2y ago

🎯

Avatar
The river flows 2y ago

Reposted!

Avatar
ΛM 2y ago

De ahí surge buen debate y no creo que uno solo logre explicar todo un sistema, pero allá vamos (al menos para animar el debate) 😅

Principio de no agresión para todos y a partir de ahí “pequeñas comunidades” elaboran sus propias leyes.

Avatar
ManiMe 2y ago

Thank you. Discussions need to be alive.

<>

Avatar
ΛM 2y ago

In the healthy debate we always win 🤝

Avatar
Matt 2y ago

Very few people seem to understand this about the Magna Carta. It's important info. The only rights we have are those we can assert.

What rights would I include? The right to be left alone, the right to my property. Beyond that, not much.

Avatar
Roger that 2y ago

I learned afterwards there was another document previous to that some centuries before In England, but Magna carta got more famous. I just can't remember the name

Avatar
atyh 2y ago

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

Avatar
ManiMe 2y ago

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

Avatar
atyh 2y ago

moral relativism disqualifies you from serious and relevant conversation.

Avatar
Akito 2y ago

You just mixed up words, there. You meant to say "moral absolutism [...]".

Avatar
serenitys forge 2y ago

I remember a youtuber called Thorium that did an excellent video on this called runnymeade. I'll have to see if I can find a mirror copy.

Avatar
🪷sut01 2y ago

I'm not educated about it but what's interesting to me is if a group overpower their king just to sign a paper other than overthrowing him and get chaos, more like evolution than revolution.

and thanks for the zap 🧡

Avatar
Troy 2y ago

Except the King broke their contract. Then subsequent kings used that contract of truce (the Magna Carta) as a marketing tool to convince the subjects that they were free.

Avatar
IvorTollah 2y ago

As a side note, Dan Jones has been doing a fascinating podcast series about how truly awful King John really was. If he wasn't such a terrible person and a horrible king we probably wouldn't have Magna Carta at all today.

[This is History: A Dynasty to Die For] Season 3. | 7. The Switch #thisIsHistoryADynastyToDieFor

https://podcastaddict.com/this-is-history-a-dynasty-to-die-for/episode/165361664 via @PodcastAddict

Avatar
ManiMe 2y ago

Thanks for all the 22 reposts! I’m running out of SATs in my wallet, and have to call it a day on zapping new reposts. (After 22) All y’all who’ve already reposted, will get Zapped. But I’ve lost count. Lol. Please be patient as I try to figure this out.

Also… imma do next #FreedomPoll a bit different. Wanna have a fun game to incentivize discussion on freedom topics, but simply rewarding for repost did not elicit the responses I was hoping for. Any pro tips?

How to generate topical conversations using zap incentives?

♥️

Avatar
Neo 2y ago

#Nostrich

Avatar
boston wine 2y ago

Reposted! Check out John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. I found that to be a pretty compelling evaluation of questions like these.

Avatar
SatsMan 2y ago

✌️☮️

Avatar
BitcoinBelle 2y ago

I don’t believe humans were designed to have authority over one another.

When strong minded, able bodied people utilize their resources to cultivate lives for themselves and/or work together with others and choose to live in community—they thrive. Protecting ourselves, loved ones, and property is innate.

I think governance taints the natural ebbs and flows of humanity and minimizes our abilities to arbitrary existential judgements made imperfect beings… usually coming from greedy desires.

Avatar
Tomáš Hančar 2y ago

As far as I'm concerned, the ability to freely kill any & all of my stalkers with no backlash would be a good starter. The rest is of less importance to me... The sheer rage & madness that shit spurred in me then invited stuff that I'd wish for nobody to go through. So my constitution would definitely contain something like the privacy = one of the very most important rights and when violated, the perpetrators stripped of any & all of their rights, including the one to live. I think that would shut down the surveillance crapitalism dumbfucks and their minions real fucking quick. As far as I am concerned, DGAF, but get this: There's people out there who are perfectly okay to commit suicide over having their privacy violated...

Also, victims of any crimes should be the ones who decide punishment. Judges and the jury = guilty or not, punishment = victim's business... Enslavement or death or surrendering entire net worth for something that general consensus would have you think is an overkill = no argument for me. ONLY the victim and SOLELY the victim is the one who can OBJECTIVELY (yes, I mean it) decide how much of a damage was done.

Imagine the politeness of a society of such a setting... Heck, even I would have behaved better, LOL (Disclaimer: Not ONCE have ever done anything to anybody that I wouldn't want to happen to me)

Stupidity community, you reading this? I'm still waiting, and my patience is melting away... Thank you very much in advance for your consideration, dumbfucks (yes, you are dumbfucks, because THE REAL DEAL would have NEVER allowed for me to realize that I'm being targeted in the first place. You're a failure and a waste of taxpayer money. Hope you sleep tight at night, motherfuckers. Also, too bad this comment can't be taken down, LOL)