• JosephS
    108
    In finding this site, I'm now recalling past conversations on topics overlapping philosophy of one sort or another. Today I recalled a conversation I had around models of governance with an individual who insisted that the Constitution ought not bind children born to citizens as they had no say in its ratification. The argument was one of an unethical imposition. I dismissed it at the time as rather delusional -- it posed an insoluble conundrum and violated closely held norms. Is this not the best form of governance? Do children not have a duty to follow social norms, including patriotic obedience to country?

    After reading a number of threads here and reflecting on the gaps in my knowledge around ethics, logic and the philosophy of law, it has brought me around to thinking about this claim again. Even then it bothered me because all I heard from myself was FYTW.

    In thinking it about it again, I wonder about how we justify obedience to a model of governance that is hardly ideal. Mind you, I believe that the US has the worst form of governance, except for all the others tried. And I do not consider it problematical that I teach my kids a fundamental respect for country at the same time as that for family and for others.

    What I wonder is whether, in contemplating an ideal, is there any progress to be made by considering changes to how governance and the age of majority of an individual coincide to produce a more equitable and ethical bond between individuals? Speaking from a liberal/libertarian ideal, are there changes (even at the edge of the practical) that we can talk about in resolving the issue of the ideological chains that we insist our children put on?

    The reason this came to my mind was (after reading the anti-natalist thread) in considering how I would react to people born to slavery or to a communist government. I would insist that they do not owe fealty to a system that they earnestly feel mistreats them (not in a sense of an uncommon lapse, human error or well-meaning ill-judgment, but in a fundamental way). That they owe it to themselves to break free of a system of fundamental injustice. In as much as my judgment with respect to what offers us the most effective form of governance is fallible, I have to also allow that an individual may feel our model of governance is fundamentally flawed. Maybe they find the Electoral College anathema. Maybe they consider a benevolent dictator to, on balance, provide a superior approach.

    What is my duty to the individual and how does my duty impact how we deal with that person when they are an adult? To say they can vote for change does not provide much solace to somehow who has an unpopular, but deeply held, conviction on how they want to order their life -- and their objection that they didn't agree to put this conviction up to a popular vote cannot be easily dismissed.

    The status quo position would be to, as we do in the US, give them a passport and let them decide for themselves where they would live. Not ideal in as much as their country of interest need not let them enter, need not let them naturalize, and even with these, limits the individual in terms of a constrained set of options (we only have about 200 countries to choose from).

    Is there a practical option to allow an individual, as a matter of birthright within this country, to be provided a space for themselves (land/property) at majority where they have an option to decide how they will interact with the US? Say at 18 they are provided a 3-year term to consider whether they would be a citizen of the US in the typical way or whether they will establish a certain independence for themselves and how they co-operate with their surrounding jurisdictions. If they choose independence, they take their homestead and calve it from the US, formally. The 3-year term would allow the person to understand and negotiate agreement with the jurisdiction of the US that bounds their territory as well as any other independent territories in the region. They might choose to form a compact with other territories, either loosely or as a merger of territories where citizenship would again apply.

    If this is practical it is only due to the fact that we have vanquished so many other ills (famine, plague, ...) that we can contemplate dealing in things previously unfeasible and whose logistical challenges is made tenable by advances in computation and networking.

    Mind you, I can only see this making sense as part of a new wave of enlightenment, one which holds the power of the larger surrounding jurisdictions at bay. But if the freedom to decide how we will interact (at the level of individually managed quasi-countries) is understood as fundamental as that of free expression, this may curb the larger jurisdiction from preying on the independent fiefdoms it borders. Rather than taxing the citizen as an imposition of jurisdictional governance, bilateral agreement between equals would determine how roads, education, and military for common defense would be funded.

    I can see someone objecting that if it did work, it might in Montana or North Dakota, but how in the world would it work in New York City. Property ownership would have to undergo a radical change if we wanted to turn a 500 square foot studio into its own quasi-country.

    Is this unworkable in principle? Has this ever been tried, even in fiction? Other than dealing with the issue of identifying how much land (and from where it would be carved) would be granted to a child, are there others that make this a non-starter from the get go?

    I see a pervasive depressive attitude regarding our impotence over our government. Can a new liberalism, a re-commitment to individual freedom and bespoke governance, serve a new enlightenment?
  • Be Kind
    17
    Any chance you can clarify your argument? I think your conclusion was that children should decide their own nationality?
    It will be helpful if you can number the reasoning like.

    1. Reason one
    2. Reason two
    Etc
    Therefore
    Conclusion.
  • JosephS
    108
    I'll give it a go. Give me a bit.
  • JosephS
    108
    An idea that I'm throwing out here as a possible resolution to claim 1, below.

    Strikes me as even less reasonable after I applied a little more formatting to my thoughts at the request of @Be Kind

    More than anything, I'd like to know if there is a practical response to claim 1.

    Assumptions:
    No governance model is ideal for all contexts and for all persons
    A liberal/libertarian commitment to minimal constraint to the individual in how they govern themselves.
    An individual right of association in how contracts between parties are negotiated.

    Claims:
    1. Individuals born to a model of governance that they did not accede to are unethically imposed upon by the expectations of the jurisdictional authority (e.g. taxation, popular representation, conscription)
    2. Popular representation is insufficient to resolve concerns that deeply held convictions are at the mercy of a majoritarian decision whose authoritative justification has not been accepted by the individual
    3. Freedom of emigration is insufficient to resolve the ethical concerns of (1) due to constraints over immigration, naturalization and governance model selection
    4. Our ethical duty to one another implies elimination of unnecessary constraints over self-governance
    5. Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 may be responded to by supporting independence of adults from the prevailing jurisdiction
    5a. In cases where independence is claimed, negotiation between the independent party and the surrounding jurisdictions determines obligations in action (follow the law) and contracts (pay for utilities, education, law enforcement)
    5b. Unless territory in some fashion figures with independence, being an independent individual will mean little as there will be no jurisdiction to distinguish legal authority (with the possible exception of laws regarding bodily autonomy). This territory could be property/land owned prior to independence. However, as many 18-year-olds don't have property or land, independence will not mean much.

    Lots of problems are peeking out at me:
    In 5a there is an expectation that the independent party follow the law of the surrounding jurisdiction which is effectively the same obligation as the citizen, but without representation. I suppose you can be secure in your home, but it doesn't help when you need to go to work or to the store. It's little solace that you are able to negotiate the terms of the agreement when the other party has all the power. You still have to conform to the laws borne of a governance model you didn't agree to. It is only those who are able to negotiate in number that may resolve the imbalance.

    The flip-side of this is that since we are dealing with little fiefdoms with their own rules, a group of independent territories that are group-wise contiguous could match their laws to their interests and choose to avoid the surrounding jurisdiction. The federalist ideal of '50 petri dishes' finds an even more granular application of this principle as mutating blobs of legal conformity merge and divide at scales below that of even a county or township.

    Dealing with a bad neighbor would be a nightmare. How does one deal with a sovereign state that turns his stereo up to 11? If that sovereign state is suitably independent (they or friendly neighbors have all the resources they need), what lever is available to deal with anti-social behavior?

    How does an individual physically travelling this web of territories manage the legal risks?

    As a civilized society we don't let people die on the street due to lack of food, shelter or medical attention. How does a social safety net even apply among sovereign states?

    Equal protection, due process and anti-discrimination are just a few principles that might be shed by the superseding principle of a right of association and contracts that don't conform.

    The examples of Jim Jones and Rwanda suggests a need for an overarching treaty around human rights. This seems to violate the very premise on which this whole scheme was conceived if it does not support an opt out by the independent individual.

    Isn't this really just a more cumbersome and less efficient means of arriving at what we currently have, with all of the negatives and a whole host of additional complication?
  • Be Kind
    17
    Hi Josef,

    Thank you for forming your thoughts. Still don't find it easy to follow along. So I hope you will be patient with me while im asking questions about your premises.

    " Individuals born to a model of governance that they did not accede to are unethically imposed upon by the expectations of the jurisdictional authority (e.g. taxation, popular representation, conscription)"

    What are you saying here?

    1. A human is born with a citizenship.
    2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
    3. Every person have to have the right to chose their own set of rules they want to follow
    4. Not having the right to chose the set of rules you want follow is unethical.
    Therefore is unethical to get a citizenship at birth?

    If not try to simplify it for me. Try to write it like you explaining it for a child :)
  • JosephS
    108
    1. A human is born with a citizenship.
    2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
    3. Every person have to have the right to chose their own set of rules they want to follow
    4. Not having the right to chose the set of rules you want follow is unethical.
    Therefore is unethical to get a citizenship at birth?
    Be Kind

    Let me modify that slightly. Just as a point of clarification, governance only applies when we talk about more than one person. If I'm on the Earth all by myself, governance doesn't make sense. So whether it about the relationship between citizens and their government or between governments, governance deals with interpersonal (or intergovernmental) questions.

    When we talk about rules it can be the rules that the government establishes for a citizen or the rules that governments establish as part of their interaction with other governments. For instance, treaties involve rules between governments.

    1. A human is born with a citizenship.
    2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
    3. Rules that one person may find fair another person might not find fair.
    4. A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.
    5. Since rules of governance are rules between people, that right is a right of negotiation.
    6. It is unethical to force someone to live under rules that they did not have an opportunity to negotiate.
    Therefore, it is unethical to not give a person (adult) an opportunity to create a sovereign territory and negotiate rules of governance with bordering territories.

    Assume for the time being that 'negotiation' means what it says and that both parties come ready to treat the other equitably and are motivated to come to an accord. What other issues exist here?
  • Fooloso4
    5.4k


    You might be interested in this exchange between Jefferson and Madison. Jefferson says that no generation has a right to bind another. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Individuals born to a model of governance that they did not accede to are unethically imposed upon . . .JosephS

    I don't think that's clear at all.

    For one (related to a discussion we were having in another thread, by the way), no one really thinks of children as fully autonomous entities capable of granting or withholding informed consent, where as such, their consent has to be (and can be) obtained for any and everything. Children are seen as entities that slowly develop the ability to grant or withhold informed consent, which is tied to the concept of them becoming adults.

    Additionally, the whole idea of raising kids is that you're teaching them in some normative manner, you're guiding their development, including in terms of values.

    Two, practically, there's no way that it could work to have children opt out of the social system they're born into, whereupon they immediately decide what sort of governance they'd like. When they're born they can't communicate or take care of themselves. Where would we keep them, how would we raise them until they're able to talk enough to say what sort of government they want? How many different governments do they get? How often do they vote--there are more kids every day.

    It's a ridiculous idea, really.

    The most practical solution is what we do. Once they reach the age of adulthood, they have a say, they can vote, etc. just like everyone else.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.JosephS

    That can't work for similar reasons. If we have 100 people and they find 100 different things fair, what do we do? You can't have a functioning, interactive society if each person is effectively their own country and there's no overarching "international" law. If Country Joe thinks it's fair to rape Country Jane, but Country Jane doesn't think that's fair, what do we do?

    In order to have a society in the first place, there has to be some compromise. As part of that compromise, some people are going to think that some things aren't fair. There's no way to avoid that with real people.
  • Be Kind
    17
    again its hard for me to see the reasoning here.


    1. What is your definition for fairness. And why it is only narrowly applied in this argument?
    2. What do you think is the objective of a nation/country/government ?
    3. Your conclusion was that a man should not just be able to create his own nation but should also get a land to do that? How did you get there from the fact that he should be able to negotiate the rules he wish to follow? I'm trying to think of some suppressed premises that will make this argument reasonable but I can't think of any.
  • JosephS
    108
    1. What is your definition for fairness. And why it is only narrowly applied in this argument?
    2. What do you think is the objective of a nation/country/government ?
    3. Your conclusion was that a man should not just be able to create his own nation but should also get a land to do that? How did you get there from the fact that he should be able to negotiate the rules he wish to follow? I'm trying to think of some suppressed premises that will make this argument reasonable but I can't think of any.
    Be Kind

    1. A human is born with a citizenship.
    2. A citizen has a set of rules he need to follow
    3. Rules that one person may find fair another person might not find fair.
    4. A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.
    5. Since rules of governance are rules between people, that right is a right of negotiation.
    6. It is unethical to force someone to live under rules that they did not have an opportunity to negotiate.
    Therefore, it is unethical to not give a person (adult) an opportunity to create a sovereign territory and negotiate rules of governance with bordering territories.
    JosephS

    1. With respect to your question about fairness, my response is that fairness is essentially subjective (see point 3 above). I'm not sure by what you mean by "narrowly applied". The larger point is to respect others' subjective application of fairness to the extent that they are granted an opportunity to negotiate how they will interact with others (governance).
    2. I've always thought the preamble to the Constitution provided a good, if wordy, summary of why our government exists (ideally):
    - a union of people with common interest
    - to provide for a common defense
    - to promote the general welfare
    - to defend the liberty of those individuals within its jurisdiction
    To answer your question, however, (any) government's objective could be many other things - for one, to control and exert power over people to serve the interests of a few. At the most abstract, government organizes people and controls territory.
    3. The conclusion reflects an ideal in much the same way that just governance derives from and is a grant from the People. As to that ideal, I may well object and say, "Baloney. Power (including government authority) is and always has been the exercise of a few over the many. Classical liberal ideals are a paean to some heretofore unwitnessed reality, a fantasy used to mollify the sheep to their betters." The position put forward reflects a norm on how people ought to act towards one another.

    Looking to Locke and others who wrote around the period of the founding of the US, we find a whole host of ideals bandied about that were leveraged by the people that wrote the US Constitution.

    Those ideals include a general freedom of individuals from restraint. This freedom isn't categorical. Your free action is often my harm. The ideals and the contours of the rights and legitimate restraints found their way into our common document of governance.

    Echoes of the extension of those ideals can be found in Virginia Wolfe -- "A Room of One's Own"

    We are already granted a limited right to negotiate the rules we are to follow. We must persuade many to change rules. What I discuss here is expanding that grant to its logical extent and the barriers to it. The most obvious of those barriers is providing someone land that they may separate from our country violates the territorial integrity of our country. The will to permit it flies against thousands of years of human development. Territorial separation in human history is the subject of war, not of peace.

    So, yes, it's absurd. But does it make any sense to the general concern that I didn't agree to the rules found within the Constitution? Therefore, binding me to it is wrong. I imagine an argument, not mine, that the next wave is not one of constituting government, of collecting people to a common form of control, but of letting them go, of freeing them to their own sphere of influence.

    My response to this is "sounds hokey. you don't always get what you want". Is there a better response?
  • JosephS
    108
    Thank you. While I was under the impression there was a position among some of our Founding Fathers that the Constitution ought to be re-ratified every 20 years, I had never read this particular letter.

    Interesting stuff:

    The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of[1] the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.Thomas Jefferson

    In reading the letter, I'm unclear as to how it succeeds in what it aims -- "that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof"
  • JosephS
    108
    That can't work for similar reasons. If we have 100 people and they find 100 different things fair, what do we do? You can't have a functioning, interactive society if each person is effectively their own country and there's no overarching "international" law. If Country Joe thinks it's fair to rape Country Jane, but Country Jane doesn't think that's fair, what do we do?Terrapin Station

    3. Rules that one person may find fair another person might not find fair.
    4. A person has a right to live under the set of rules that they find fair.
    5. Since rules of governance are rules between people, that right is a right of negotiation.
    JosephS

    I don't disagree that it's fundamentally unworkable. As to your objections, though, if I were arguing against you I might mention that we already have international treaties and if country A attacks country B force by other countries is an option to bring country A in line.

    The underlying premise (it's not anarchy) is that absent agreement, action taken by one individual against another is de facto prohibited. The threat of force by other members of the community of individuals is what prevents Joe from doing what he will to Jane.
  • Fooloso4
    5.4k
    In reading the letter, I'm unclear as to how it succeeds in what it aims -- "that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof"JosephS

    Well, since Jefferson's idea was rejected, we don't know if or how t would have succeeded. It has wide ranging impact on property, contracts, laws.

    Jefferson was not completely ignored though. Article 5 of the Constitution:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    note the section I bolded. The Koch brothers and other ultra wealthy conservative plutocrats have been pushing to take advantage of this little known clause. In effect if they are successful in convening a convention then they will be able to rewrite the Constitution if ratified by three fourths of the states.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    The underlying premise (it's not anarchy) is that absent agreement, action taken by one individual against another is de facto prohibited.JosephS

    But how do you get that agreement? If I didn't agree to allow others to take action against me just in case I rape someone, what do we do? You're saying that absent my agreement to let others take action against me, you'd prohibit that action against me.
  • JosephS
    108


    But how do you get that agreement? If I didn't agree to allow others to take action against me just in case I rape someone, what do we do? You're saying that absent my agreement to let others take action against me, you'd prohibit that action against me.Terrapin Station

    Taken as a first premise, that minimal constraint involves not interfering when an agreement exists. In absence of an agreement, all force necessary to mitigate the violation of rights is permissible.

    So, yes, applying a universal precept, A may take action against B to stop or prevent B from acting against C. That B took action against C without agreement is basis for A's action. There's a circularity that needs to accounted for. If B is acting against C because C took action against D (without agreement), then A may not take action against B.

    This doesn't pretend to deal with edge cases, such as if B's actions against C (to stop action against D) are excessive. Who defines excessive? But, again, the counter would be that we have international treaties that have been used to manage these sorts of situations. In looking at how we deal with international issues, diplomacy and action are as much about politics as principle.

    That might be an objection in and of itself. That within the confines of legal code, we obtain consistency in rules whereas having, for n different independent interacting parties, (n/2)*(n-1) sets of rules [and this only for looking at parties pair-wise], is unworkable not just in practice, but in principle.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    In absence of an agreement, all force necessary to mitigate the violation of rights is permissibleJosephS

    Per your views, on what grounds is this permissible if someone didn't agree to it?
  • Be Kind
    17
    I am trying to follow some logical steps from reasoning to conclusion in the sense that the conclusion is unavoidable. But I don't see it in this case.

    1. Narrowly applied. I will explain.
    I think fairness could be interchange with reasonable. Is it reasonable? And I think it is. Giving the fact that I believe no one is able to get exactly what they want in a group of more than one some sacrifices need to be made.

    Now you talk about individual but a country have many of those. So the sacrifice that 1 make is equal to the sacrifice that another make therefore its reasonable/fair.
    Example - One didn't negotiate all the rules (I believe non of them did that is a far fech assertion) and the other didn't get the vote to allow a person to be a citizen when he granted one at birth.

    2 As for the conclusion. getting their own land. Land cost money. People can live their whole life without being able to do that. But your conclusion is that a person just need to disagree with the government to be allowed to get a piece of land?

    I think more reasonable conclusion is that one should be allowed to forfeit his citizenship.

    Also you keep on talking about rights but say nothing about obligations.
  • JosephS
    108
    Also you keep on talking about rights but say nothing about obligations.Be Kind

    The whole topic is premised on an obligation that I referenced in my the first post.

    What is my duty to the individual and how does my duty impact how we deal with that person when they are an adult? To say they can vote for change does not provide much solace to somehow who has an unpopular, but deeply held, conviction on how they want to order their life -- and their objection that they didn't agree to put this conviction up to a popular vote cannot be easily dismissed.JosephS

    I wouldn't contend that fair is equivalent to reasonable in all contexts. Fair is closer to equitable. I'm more of the mind, vis-a-vis this topic, that exacting fairness to the individual, assuming we can come up with some standard, may not be reasonable to implement.

    In any event, this was more a thought experiment on a topic that was raised for me some time ago. I meant it as a straw dog to knock down. I'm content that that was achieved to my satisfaction.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment