So, while I do agree that considering the dynamics of governments is very relevant to the future of thinking systems...
whew! didn’t need all those words. the author feels like they come from a particular kind of background that I have some very strong agreements with and some equally very strong disagreements with, and reading their writing is just a bit too much for me (I really don’t think that encouraging people to think of themselves as lords—controlling commanders of others—is a move that produces a culture that is better than our own). so, here’s a kagi summary:
The author argues that enumerated rights in constitutions inevitably lead to a narrowing of rights over time as rights not explicitly listed are not recognized.
Early 20th century British novels imagined dystopian scenarios of a German occupation and saw even minor government overreach as tyrannical.
Islam has remained remarkably consistent in interpretation over 1400 years due to its theological foundations, while common law traditions evolve.
The attacks on Charlie Hebdo highlighted deep divisions between interpretations of appropriate responses to blasphemy in Islam.
Many original intentions of the US Bill of Rights have eroded over time or been overridden by new amendments and case law interpretations.
American gun culture has roots in efforts to arm freed blacks after the Civil War and grew from the Black Panthers’ embrace of Second Amendment rights.
Canadians embraced trucker convoy protests as asserting rights from their Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a way courts did not.
Future constitutions could learn from features like Islam’s resistance to change, pride in rights, and explicit enforcement through violence.
A “Dark Bill of Rights” is proposed that is unchanging, cultivates pride in rights, and demands violent enforcement of rights against tyranny.
Cultural forces like understanding of the Second Amendment could survive the dissolution of its legal basis in a future dystopian scenario.
so… there’s an unchanging thing, parts of the system durably refer back to it, its enforcement is decentralized. seems pretty compatible with the open agency line of thinking.
Valentine, is there anything else in the article that you feel is worth compressing, or does this cover enough of it that you feel someone who didn’t read the article would get enough from it?
So, while I do agree that considering the dynamics of governments is very relevant to the future of thinking systems...
whew! didn’t need all those words. the author feels like they come from a particular kind of background that I have some very strong agreements with and some equally very strong disagreements with, and reading their writing is just a bit too much for me (I really don’t think that encouraging people to think of themselves as lords—controlling commanders of others—is a move that produces a culture that is better than our own). so, here’s a kagi summary:
so… there’s an unchanging thing, parts of the system durably refer back to it, its enforcement is decentralized. seems pretty compatible with the open agency line of thinking.
Valentine, is there anything else in the article that you feel is worth compressing, or does this cover enough of it that you feel someone who didn’t read the article would get enough from it?