I mean, I don't see how that is even theoretically possible though? You could set up a system of laws such that nobody has the legal authority to either revoke people's rights or to change the law to allow them that authority, but at the end of the day, laws are just words on paper (or whatever other medium). If someone can physically overpower the state and any other group that attemps resistance, that person can just rip up all those laws and establish new systems, and since that can theoretically be achieved by just getting enough people to follow and listen to you, and communication is one of those rights people generally seek to protect anyway, you can't entirely eliminate the risk that some demagogue will find a way to whip up a cult following big enough.

[–] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

In democracies like the UK, Australia and Canada, I'm pretty sure they have it setup like this. The top person "running" the country has actually very little power to just come in and start removing rights or creating new laws without it having to actually be reviewed and approved.

They definitely are not perfect systems by any means and are still open to corruption by bad actors. But they are slightly better at stopping one bad person being able to remove rights.