I'm not sure about this idea that a current generation binding a future generation legally is undemocratic. Most of the Constitution, which is essentially a transgenerationally binding law and intended that way, would be undemocratic by that logic. Usually having a constitution is considered relatively democratic.
The wisdom of our foreparents in the 1930's suggests that we bind ourselves to be concerned socially, to have concerns as a group larger than the family, as a nation, for the welfare of those who have retired from productive work. Any current generation's wealth is based in part on the congealed and preserved creations of the immediately prior generation. That's an economic democratic rationale for American Social Security. We are bound by our democratic forefathers (sic), who wrote the Constitution, to be concerned for the General Welfare,including the elderly, to be concerned as a People, as a whole nation. SS is eminently democratic in our American tradition. God Bless Social Security ! :>) Charles David Shemano wrote: I would suggest that this is problematic, because while it would be democratic for current workers to agree to tax themselves to transfer assets to the currently retired, it is anti-democratic to bind future generations to tax themselves to transfer funds to the current workers when the current workers retire. Among other things, current workers (and current retirees) have no incentive to take into consideration the effect of present decisions on future generations. SS payments (and similar transfers like Medicare) continue to incease as a percentage of the budget each year, which means the budget options for future generations will be severely restricted.
