A clause that benefits one group can still benefit everybody. A reasonable position is that bishops should be appointed by the church, not the king. Another is that there shouldn't be high taxes on rich people (or even just on noblemen and gentry). In other cases, specifying the group might not be restrictive in reality. I bet the king had no right to take wardship of merchants' or peasants' daughters, just of vassals'.
The no-Jewish-interest one is interesting (I resisted saying 'full of interest"). Note that it just applies to minor heirs. It is a protection to heirs to restrict the ability of knights to take on debt.
Doesn’t Buchanan restrict the consideration to “members of the relevant community”? Commoners weren’t part of the political community of England, so of course the constitution doesn’t address their political concerns.
I’m missing some context. I am somewhat familiar with Buchanan's ideas, but not sure what ideas Bryan is comparing them to.
Also, Bryan's interpretation of Buchanan seems a bit narrow and uncharitable. Does Buchanan's hypothesis really require that every provision of the Magna Carta benefit every party? A more generous interpretation would view the entire document as the result of a negotiation, and the more or less unanimous agreement indicating that all parties expect to benefit. Judging it provision by provision seems to test the wrong hypothesis.
If all this is accurate, it seems that the analysis provided compares a straw man version of Buchanan with a charitable version of Buchanan. Well, not really. Sort of.
Certainly Hayek, who recommended abstract rules that apply to all, would judge the Magna Carta as flawed.
A clause that benefits one group can still benefit everybody. A reasonable position is that bishops should be appointed by the church, not the king. Another is that there shouldn't be high taxes on rich people (or even just on noblemen and gentry). In other cases, specifying the group might not be restrictive in reality. I bet the king had no right to take wardship of merchants' or peasants' daughters, just of vassals'.
The no-Jewish-interest one is interesting (I resisted saying 'full of interest"). Note that it just applies to minor heirs. It is a protection to heirs to restrict the ability of knights to take on debt.
Thank You
Doesn’t Buchanan restrict the consideration to “members of the relevant community”? Commoners weren’t part of the political community of England, so of course the constitution doesn’t address their political concerns.
"raise" not "race", I presume. First line.
I’m missing some context. I am somewhat familiar with Buchanan's ideas, but not sure what ideas Bryan is comparing them to.
Also, Bryan's interpretation of Buchanan seems a bit narrow and uncharitable. Does Buchanan's hypothesis really require that every provision of the Magna Carta benefit every party? A more generous interpretation would view the entire document as the result of a negotiation, and the more or less unanimous agreement indicating that all parties expect to benefit. Judging it provision by provision seems to test the wrong hypothesis.
If all this is accurate, it seems that the analysis provided compares a straw man version of Buchanan with a charitable version of Buchanan. Well, not really. Sort of.
Certainly Hayek, who recommended abstract rules that apply to all, would judge the Magna Carta as flawed.
There are 2 things to say about this:
It really is a distribution for the good of all the "people".
Also, the Lords who wrote the the Magna Carta didn't consider commoners to be people.