Your work on baselines had influenced many and improved understandings of authority. Professor Larry Solum's treatment of the issue, and your work, is exemplary. But is there an error nesting in your analysis? Should capacity to consent to the influence of others precede and underlie all of the possible baselines you and Solum have described.
We can apply that argument in various contexts, from climate policy and the failure of the Paris Agreement, to the philanthropy of the uber-wealthy.
Arguably, truly free people will fundamentally limit and decentralize the power (including subtle influences like climate emissions, the slow dilution of democracy, the concentration of wealth, power and control in a few, and the impact of bad parenting on communities) others have over them. How? Fair Start family reforms, like climate restoration and #birthequity baby bonds to physically constitute democracy and consensual governance using an inversion test, ensure that people are actually empowered - in places like town halls - to make the ultimate rules under which all must live.
These reforms correct something called the constitutive fallacy: Ignoring the way our creation and development does and (assuming we use baselines like the Children's Rights Convention) should - fundamentally - constitute actual power relations, between humans, and between humans and the nonhuman world or nature upon which freedom is based.
From your work I will assume you see the U.S. Constitution as supreme, perhaps limited by some form of international law.
Could a more supreme norm exist in the form of whatever norm would best account for creating the people from whose authority these other norms derive?
Recommended for You
Who we are might be different mixes of nurture, or nature, or influential power relations like climate policies, but all flow (and among self-determining peoples should flow) from our creation. How do we correct the fallacy? Taking wealth from the top and giving it to young women to ensure parental readiness that avoids things like parents torturing their children to death, #birthequity redistribution of that wealth to ensure true equality of opportunity, and a universal ethic and default of smaller families that long run ensure decolonization, participatory democracy and the freedom of nature.
Fair start family reparations override because being just in who we are precedes being just in what we do. And we cannot assign things like property rights that derogate from our being (or constituting the fundamental power relations so that we are) free and equal people. Wealthy people, and the unscrupulous politicians and charities that shill for them, will hide the fallacy, and its override.
But without these reforms people will continue to try to wrongly empower themselves through acts of violence, and against the wrong targets rather than the people responsible for or who benefitted from the family policies that externalized the costs of their wealth and refuse to change course. The violent will harm innocents, rather than those extracting power from freedom by crowding people out of town halls and into the shopping malls, the move that fundamentally created the climate and other deadly crises we face today.
Thanks for considering.
The Team at Fair Start Movement