Inter-generational crime

[tik 🪀✨]

This is not about how a parent committing a crime makes their child predisposed to commit a crime. Rather, it's the concept of the law forbidding an act that would be to the detriment of future generations on a large scale. As someone ignorant of most things, I found it intriguing.

Originally it was brought up in the context of global warming. That is, a polluter is guilty of ruining the planet for future generations and should be actively held accountable by being prosecuted and fined or jailed in the present.

It's a curious concept and one that I find compelling but also troublesome. So, smart people, does this idea already exist in current law? What do you think of it in general?

And do your best to not have this thread veer off into an argument about global warming itself. It was just an example.

[Redalgo]

I honestly do not know how it relates to the laws of today, though I remember this concept also being related to so-called "third generation rights" in liberalism, with the 1st generation being civil rights focused upon by classical liberals while the 2nd generation is comprised of the economic rights recognized and also pushed for by social liberals. The "new" or "green" liberal supports all three generations of individual rights, with inter-generational rights being the newest addition to their list of what government is supposed to uphold and protect to remain in adherence to the core tenets of liberal philosophy.

Edit:

My opinion of the concept is high. Just as the individual's exercise of liberty in pursuit of life and happiness can be unjustly inhibited by acts of government, organized religion, firms, unions, other individuals, etc. and also by ones socioeconomic lot in life it is not difficult to see how actions by people living today could inflict harm upon people tomorrow, or limit the actionability of their freedoms to such an extent as to warrant regulation of human conduct in the present, accordingly.

I suppose the main issue is deciding where to draw the line between doing enough to protect the individual autonomy and self-determination of future generations' on one hand or doing too much on the other to restrict individual autonomy and self-determination in the present. A similar concern exists for social liberals in how they balance freedom-enhancing individual empowerment and equality of opportunity against private property rights and freedom to do as one pleases in business - or at an even more fundamental level with how classical liberals choose to err in controversial instances when pragmatic, utilitarian reasoning is pitted against their devotion to defend (arguably) inalienable, God-given rights.

Personally, I believe inter-generational concerns are among several to consider on the path to recognizing that socialism or a mixed system can be made just as compatible with the core ideals of liberalism as (if not even more so than) capitalism.

[barfbag]

This is not about how a parent committing a crime makes their child predisposed to commit a crime. Rather, it's the concept of the law forbidding an act that would be to the detriment of future generations on a large scale. As someone ignorant of most things, I found it intriguing.

Originally it was brought up in the context of global warming. That is, a polluter is guilty of ruining the planet for future generations and should be actively held accountable by being prosecuted and fined or jailed in the present.

It's a curious concept and one that I find compelling but also troublesome. So, smart people, does this idea already exist in current law? What do yo u think of it in general?

And do your best to not have this thread veer off into an argument about global warming itself. It was just an example.

In this case Obama is committing the worst crime in the world by passing on a huge debt to our grandchildren.