Intergenerational Sovereignty

[Laurence Drake]

Why should the laws of the past have authority in the present?

Suppose the United Kingdom passes an Act of Parliament declaring that the United States once again be made a British colony. Americans would object to this, saying that the Act is illegitimate because it lacks the democratic consent of the American people.
But the British have a response: most of America's own laws are illegitimate in this very same sense, because no American alive today ever cast a vote in favour of these laws, but instead had these laws imposed on them involuntarily since birth.

Why should Americans be any less outraged by their existing laws than by this new Act of Parliament? In the one case they are under the authority of the British, whom they did not elect; but in the other, they are under the authority of dead lawmakers, whom they also did not elect. It would be no less just to impose British laws on Americans, than it would be for Americans to reject British authority.

[milku3459]

If they choose to I suppose they could make paedophilia legal.
But no one wants to, so it's not that they can't be represented, it's just that they don't see a need to change stuff.
In 1776, the Americans wanted change but had no way to enact it. If they sent reps over (if georgy allowed it) they would take months to correspond and make laws.

[fightinfrenchman]

The British government does not hold any authority because they do not provide any services to Americans. We may not agree with all of our laws and we did not have a say in most of them, but the simple act of utilizing any thing provided by the government (roads, education, etc.) provides tacit consent to follow that government's laws.

[Laurence Drake]

The British government does not hold any authority because they do not provide any services to Americans. We may not agree with all of our laws and we did not have a say in most of them, but the simple act of utilizing any thing provided by the government (roads, education, etc.) provides tacit consent to follow that government's laws.

But if America became a British colony again, the British government would become responsible for paying for public services, and for providing those services to the American people. So, by your reasoning, it would still be permissible for Britain to impose its laws on the US, since Americans would tacitly consent to British rule by using the services now provided by Britain.

[fightinfrenchman]

The British government does not hold any authority because they do not provide any services to Americans. We may not agree with all of our laws and we did not have a say in most of them, but the simple act of utilizing any thing provided by the government (roads, education, etc.) provides tacit consent to follow that government's laws.

But if America became a British colony again, the British government would become responsible for paying for public services, and for providing those services to the American people. So, by your reasoning, it would still be permissible for Britain to impose its laws on the US, since Americans would tacitly consent to British rule by using the services now provided by Britain.

Anyone in the world can pass a law and claim that it impacts Americans. But if they do not have the ability to actually enforce those laws they are meaningless. Britain would have to actually invade and set up a government here to enforce laws.

[Laurence Drake]

The British government does not hold any authority because they do not provide any services to Americans. We may not agree with all of our laws and we did not have a say in most of them, but the simple act of utilizing any thing provided by the government (roads, education, etc.) provides tacit consent to follow that government's laws.

But if America became a British colony again, the British government would become responsible for paying for public services, and for providing those services to the American people. So, by your reasoning, it would still be permissible for Britain to impose its laws on the US, since Americans would tacitly consent to British rule by using the services now provided by Britain.

Anyone in the world can pass a law and claim that it impacts Americans. But if they do not have the ability to actually enforce those laws they are meaningless. Britain would have to actually invade and set up a government here to enforce laws.

That proves my point. Past generations of legislators can't enforce the laws they made (because they're all dead), so on what grounds are their laws legitimate? Why follow the US Bill of Rights when nobody alive today voted in favour of it, and all those who did are long gone?

[fightinfrenchman]

That proves my point. Past generations of legislators can't enforce the laws they made (because they're all dead), so on what grounds are their laws legitimate? Why follow the US Bill of Rights when nobody alive today voted in favour of it, and all those who did are long gone?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who proposed having a new Constitution written every 25 years so that each generation would get a say. It's really an issue of practicality at that point. As long as a supermajority of people agree with the system we have in place it doesn't need to change.

Despite public trust in government not being great at the moment it's hard to argue that we don't have a strong state.

[Laurence Drake]

That proves my point. Past generations of legislators can't enforce the laws they made (because they're all dead), so on what grounds are their laws legitimate? Why follow the US Bill of Rights when nobody alive today voted in favour of it, and all those who did are long gone?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who proposed having a new Constitution written every 25 years so that each generation would get a say. It's really an issue of practicality at that point. As long as a supermajority of people agree with the system we have in place it doesn't need to change.

Despite public trust in government not being great at the moment it's hard to argue that we don't have a strong state.

But how is the present system any different from ceding authority over your country to a foreign government? How can it be rational for people to agree to the former but not the latter?

[fightinfrenchman]

That proves my point. Past generations of legislators can't enforce the laws they made (because they're all dead), so on what grounds are their laws legitimate? Why follow the US Bill of Rights when nobody alive today voted in favour of it, and all those who did are long gone?

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who proposed having a new Constitution written every 25 years so that each generation would get a say. It's really an issue of practicality at that point. As long as a supermajority of people agree with the system we have in place it doesn't need to change.

Despite public trust in government not being great at the moment it's hard to argue that we don't have a strong state.

But how is the present system any different from ceding authority over your country to a foreign government? How can it be rational for people to agree to the former but not the latter?

Well if a foreign government is able to impose their will on a state then they would have a claim to legitimacy. But that is generally pretty difficult​, so it tends to fall apart.

[Laurence Drake]

lol

[lejend]

America is a democracy, and every Congress and White House, elected by the people to represent them, agrees to uphold the laws they like and get rid of the ones they don't.

I hope you're trolling, because if you legitimately think Britain can do this, then you don't know what America is all about.

phpBB [video]

[fightinfrenchman]

lol

What?

[Laurence Drake]

I hope you're trolling, because if you legitimately think Britain can do this, then you don't know what America is all about.

Britain can't legitimately do this. The problem is explaining how US citizens following British laws is different from US citizens following laws made by past generations of US lawmakers, given that in both cases the laws are made by people whom the citizens did not elect. If these cases don't differ, then the present system is unjust.

13 D. Excerpt from Jefferson’s letter to Major John Cartwright (Monticello, June 5,
14 1824):
15 ...
16 But can they [our constitutions] be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind
17 another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the
18 earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to
19 things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The
20 particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other
21 animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the
22 rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as
23 long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in
24 place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their
25 laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent
26 and unalienable rights of man.

[milku3459]

I don't know, maybe they don't care because the injustice doesn't affect them or they don't see it as such.
You don't fight injustice for the sake of injustice

[lejend]

I hope you're trolling, because if you legitimately think Britain can do this, then you don't know what America is all about.

Britain can't legitimately do this. The problem is explaining how US citizens following British laws is different from US citizens following laws made by past generations of US lawmakers, given that in both cases the laws are made by people whom the citizens did not elect. If these cases don't differ, then the present system is unjust.

13 D. Excerpt from Jefferson’s letter to Major John Cartwright (Monticello, June 5,
14 1824):
15 ...
16 But can they [our constitutions] be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind
17 another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the
18 earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to
19 things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The
20 particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other
21 animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the
22 rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as
23 long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in
24 place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their
25 laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent
26 and unalienable rights of man.

The laws are maintained by politicians that the people elect. Major elections are every few years.

[Laurence Drake]

I hope you're trolling, because if you legitimately think Britain can do this, then you don't know what America is all about.

Britain can't legitimately do this. The problem is explaining how US citizens following British laws is different from US citizens following laws made by past generations of US lawmakers, given that in both cases the laws are made by people whom the citizens did not elect. If these cases don't differ, then the present system is unjust.

13 D. Excerpt from Jefferson’s letter to Major John Cartwright (Monticello, June 5,
14 1824):
15 ...
16 But can they [our constitutions] be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind
17 another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the
18 earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to
19 things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. The
20 particles of matter which composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other
21 animals, vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached the
22 rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may bind itself as
23 long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in
24 place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their
25 laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent
26 and unalienable rights of man.

The laws are maintained by politicians that the people elect. Major elections are every few years.

There's no vote according to which those laws are maintained. They are upheld regardless of the will of the democratic sovereign.

[lejend]

If people really wanted a law repealed, they'd vote in politicians who would do so. If a particular law isn't mentioned during the election, then people don't care much about repealing it.

[deleted_user0]

Its an interesting issue, regardless of the comparison with a foreign power which doesnt hold for reasons mrs. Legenda mentioned. As a citizen you have a right to group together and oppose and vote (or in this case elect rtepresentatives)to abolish laws, be they made by dead or living lawmakers. In case of a foreign power simmply opposing it, they have no such option, would they have it, it would not he a foreign power in that sense.

For the initial issue, also raised by jefferson, of why would people of the future be bound to laws of the past? I would say its propably have to do with continueity, while there is no longer anyone alive who voted for the representatives who made 1850's laws, there were always some people since that time, who either voted for it, or didnt vote but chose collectively not to repeal it. So basically because the electorate is gradually replaced and not replaced entirely every generation, you will always have some people left of a past generation that give legitimacy to those decisions and the people of the current generation can always organize to oppose it, as has been done with emancipation act (wrongly named so imo), civil rights bill, and yet to happen, obama care)

[Laurence Drake]

If people really wanted a law repealed, they'd vote in politicians who would do so. If a particular law isn't mentioned during the election, then people don't care much about repealing it.

Britain could pass an Act of Parliament causing the United States to become a British colony, and could allow the US Congress to repeal this Act following a majority vote. But that doesn't make the Act legitimate. It's wrong for laws to hold authority over people who did not vote for them, even if those laws can be repealed. It's still an undemocratic coercion.

[Dolan]

The Declaration of Independence by the US was actually illegal, in terms of legal norms. What made it legitimate was political self-determination to secede with the British crown. A new nation was born out of an act of treason. The only reason why it survived was its success.

So why should the UK today recognise that the US is a separate country? Legal answer is: they shouldn't, because secession was illegal. But politically, do you think the UK could possibly challenge the US independence now?

As for why do past laws still abide long after they were passed, the answer is: because they haven't yet been repealed. And where there is no other legal norm, the oldest one applies. And where there are no legal norms, customs apply.

Yeah, I know your question is philosophical, but that's how the rule of law works. If this weren't the case, then every generation would have to not only "refresh their laws" but also the legal basis for every act of ownership (legal rights of property).

[deleted_user0]

If people really wanted a law repealed, they'd vote in politicians who would do so. If a particular law isn't mentioned during the election, then people don't care much about repealing it.

Britain could pass an Act of Parliament causing the United States to become a British colony, and could allow the US Congress to repeal this Act following a majority vote. But that doesn't make the Act legitimate. It's wrong for laws to hold authority over people who did not vote for them, even if those laws can be repealed. It's still an undemocratic coercion.

its coercion, but not necessarily undemocratic, i think.

1860 the majority of the electorate has voted for a president who passed a law.
1870 there are now people part of the electorate who didn't vote at the time the president who passed that law was elected, but there are also still people around who did vote at that time, and they are probably a majority still. However, these people who didn't vote at that time now have an opportunity to vote for someone who will repeal those laws, if they do not, then they accept it. If they try to repeal it but fail to gain a majority, they must accept it by the rules of democracy.
1960's There is now nobody left in the electorate who could have voted in the 1860's elections, but there are still people alive who could've tried to get someone elected to repeal those laws in previous elections, and so the rules apply again, they either don't act and consent, or they try to get it repealed, and if they don't succeed, they must accept it by rules of democracy.

[lejend]

If people really wanted a law repealed, they'd vote in politicians who would do so. If a particular law isn't mentioned during the election, then people don't care much about repealing it.

Britain could pass an Act of Parliament causing the United States to become a British colony, and could allow the US Congress to repeal this Act following a majority vote. But that doesn't make the Act legitimate. It's wrong for laws to hold authority over people who did not vote for them, even if those laws can be repealed. It's still an undemocratic coercion.

Well technically most laws are unjust. The only laws are the moral laws.

[Laurence Drake]

If people really wanted a law repealed, they'd vote in politicians who would do so. If a particular law isn't mentioned during the election, then people don't care much about repealing it.

Britain could pass an Act of Parliament causing the United States to become a British colony, and could allow the US Congress to repeal this Act following a majority vote. But that doesn't make the Act legitimate. It's wrong for laws to hold authority over people who did not vote for them, even if those laws can be repealed. It's still an undemocratic coercion.

Well technically most laws are unjust. The only laws are the moral laws.

http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.i ... o_3641.pdf

have fun.

[lejend]

http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.i ... o_3641.pdf

have fun.

My reading list is already full.

[Laurence Drake]

http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.i ... o_3641.pdf

have fun.

My reading list is already full.

shallow tbqh.