4 ms·

Damn, this is awesome.

mc32 8y ago
I think it could have been done in a better way avoiding the personhood issue some people have: set up a regional (necessarily international) authority made up of various stakeholders which looks after the interests of the lake.
- joshAg 8y ago
  But that regional authority would have to be a legal person, too, in order to do anything via the legal system. This doesn't avoid the problem of personhood at all, so much as it changes who/what the nonnatural person actually is. Like, say we did it your way. We make a regional authority that's only raison d'etre is looking after the ecological interests of the lake. That's going to be either some NGO or non-profit or government agency, all of which are considered persons under the law.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Yes it totally avoids the problem, because the hypothetical authority is made up of people, thus granted (some of) the legal rights of persons.
    - joshAg 8y ago
      Nonnatural persons aren't granted rights under the law because they're made up of people though. In America they're granted those rights because it makes dealing with them much easier. That's it. That's why it's so confusing which rights are reserved only for natural persons and which apply to all persons. https://books.google.com/books?id=4K0CWvR2FNEC&pg=RA1-PA284&dq=whence+do+non+natural+persons+derive+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD0ZzYrd3gAhU0NH0KHaokDuQQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=whence%20do%20non%20natural%20persons%20derive%20rights&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=4K0CWvR2FNEC&pg=RA1-PA284&... I'm trying to link to the section that starts just barely on the page before "Indeterminacy of the Personhood Designation"
  - comex 8y ago
    But it does avoid the problem of having a legal person that lacks a well-defined intent, which is probably the weirdest aspect of this.
- egypturnash 8y ago
  I like the personhood issue. If a corporation can be a person for purposes of law, then why shouldn't the resources it wants to exploit be a person for purposes of law as well?
8bitsrule 8y ago
Yep. Another recent example is the The White Earth band of Ojibwe recognition of the Rights of Manoomin (“wild rice”). https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/02/04/the-white-earth-band-of-ojibwe-legally-recognized-the-rights-of-wild-rice-heres-why/ https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/02/04/the-white-earth-ba... Linked article reminds us that 'In 2008, Ecuador and Bolivia both added Rights of Nature clauses to their constitutions.' Not a moment too soon. To protect nature is to protect ourselves and our progeny. The same is true for any corporations in any way dependent on extraction (or as they learned to call it 'harvesting').

mc32 8y ago

I think it could have been done in a better way avoiding the personhood issue some people have: set up a regional (necessarily international) authority made up of various stakeholders which looks after the interests of the lake.

joshAg 8y ago
But that regional authority would have to be a legal person, too, in order to do anything via the legal system. This doesn't avoid the problem of personhood at all, so much as it changes who/what the nonnatural person actually is. Like, say we did it your way. We make a regional authority that's only raison d'etre is looking after the ecological interests of the lake. That's going to be either some NGO or non-profit or government agency, all of which are considered persons under the law.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Yes it totally avoids the problem, because the hypothetical authority is made up of people, thus granted (some of) the legal rights of persons.
  - joshAg 8y ago
    Nonnatural persons aren't granted rights under the law because they're made up of people though. In America they're granted those rights because it makes dealing with them much easier. That's it. That's why it's so confusing which rights are reserved only for natural persons and which apply to all persons. https://books.google.com/books?id=4K0CWvR2FNEC&pg=RA1-PA284&dq=whence+do+non+natural+persons+derive+rights&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD0ZzYrd3gAhU0NH0KHaokDuQQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=whence%20do%20non%20natural%20persons%20derive%20rights&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=4K0CWvR2FNEC&pg=RA1-PA284&... I'm trying to link to the section that starts just barely on the page before "Indeterminacy of the Personhood Designation"
- comex 8y ago
  But it does avoid the problem of having a legal person that lacks a well-defined intent, which is probably the weirdest aspect of this.
egypturnash 8y ago
I like the personhood issue. If a corporation can be a person for purposes of law, then why shouldn't the resources it wants to exploit be a person for purposes of law as well?

8bitsrule 8y ago

Yep. Another recent example is the The White Earth band of Ojibwe recognition of the Rights of Manoomin (“wild rice”). https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/02/04/the-white-earth-band-of-ojibwe-legally-recognized-the-rights-of-wild-rice-heres-why/ https://www.nationofchange.org/2019/02/04/the-white-earth-ba... Linked article reminds us that 'In 2008, Ecuador and Bolivia both added Rights of Nature clauses to their constitutions.' Not a moment too soon. To protect nature is to protect ourselves and our progeny. The same is true for any corporations in any way dependent on extraction (or as they learned to call it 'harvesting').