61–67 of 67 posts
Normally, both natural and artificial persons have responsibilities as well as rights. But a gorilla or a river obviously can't have responsibilities... Therefore at most they can be considered a rather limited kind of person, more like a human infant or an intellectually incapable adult than a regular human or an organisation of regular humans. Then of course it falls to humans to determine what the best interests o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? The joint stock corporation (a marvelous invention, but just a machine) has, though misunderstanding of Latin, gained all sorts of personhood in US law at least. It’s only fair that this be extended to animate, and perhaps inanimate, objects as well.
The burgeoning concept of the "Natural Asset Corporation" still leaves me queasy, though. I wonder if this is just groundwork to make it a reality.
If I run over you in my car, I go to prison, not the car. Yet if a corporation kills you, the person “driving” isn’t punished, it’s the company that pays the fine.
And for some reason it’s the company that has free speech rights. No river has those.
Let me guess now the US can take and interfere under the banner of "human right" because those global south savages can't manage their lands.
Some will say this is a 'conspiracy' site despite all the sourced connecting quotes, and legal outcomes, related to these vehicles. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/w...
This movement to make animals and natural features of the environment (mountains, rivers, lakes etc) fit the definition of a "person" for legal purposes has been gaining a ton of momentum over the last decade and is incredibly important for the future of the environment. It will allow these rivers etc to sue entities for damaging them, and can stop harmful developments that are in the planning stages. It didn't help…
If a river can sue, does it have property rights? What happens to the damages paid? What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? It cannot make decisions. This doesn't make any sense. How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?
The river has two banks already! *Zing!*
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like NFTs applied to forests and coral reefs and stuff. What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world. Sell your woodland hash and log the real trees; nothing stops the "double spend".
What I don't get is how this requires people to actually protect those things in the real world As I understand it: it works mainly by changing the legal standing. Right now, nobody can sue for destruction of habitat because they would have to prove firstly how they are personally affected by said habitat. By using Natural Personhood as proxy, anyone can sue, using the Natural Person to provide standing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a river can sue, does it have property rights? What happens to the damages paid? What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? It cannot make decisions. This doesn't make any sense. How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?
> What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? The river has two banks already! *Zing!*
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a river can sue, does it have property rights? What happens to the damages paid? What does it mean for a river to own a bank account? It cannot make decisions. This doesn't make any sense. How does the concept of personhood provide anything beyond or different from passing a law that protects a river?
You ask these questions like they can't be answered by a trust for the river. The river being granted personhood allows other legal entities to form around it and make arguments for its interests. It does make sense. Using "personhood" in this way has been the status quo for half a dozen other types of entities for going on generations now. Your complaints here strike me as similar to complaining about the use of "th…
If there is a trust for the river, then some human or humans are responsible for making decisions for the trust. So we are talking about an organization of humans that are working to protect the river, not the river itself personified. The organization can sue. The organization can own a bank account. The organization can be awarded damages, provided they have somehow acquired rights to the river. The river cannot do these things.
This is an important distinction because making decisions involves responsibility. If you treat the river as a person in itself, that would mean that the river can be blamed or held responsible, which is nonsense. To do so would hide the responsibility of the real humans who are making decisions. In fact, the organization is responsible, and the humans who run it are responsible for their decisions.