6 ms·

This movement is a little stupid, or at best trying to capitalize on headline-grabbing aspects of it that appeal to laymen. In the best case, I would give them

This movement is a little stupid, or at best trying to capitalize on headline-grabbing aspects of it that appeal to laymen. In the best case, I would give them credit for using "clickbait"-level tactics to get attention on the real cause to be advocated. Objects, geographic features, even animals, don't have rights of their own. Their protection is advocated for by people, for the benefit of people, under our laws. We fight to protect things like these because we value them as people. They don't have inherent rights. Rights come with responsibilities. It's a person-centric view, but what else do we have in our current system? The Constitution talks about individuals, not objects. I think their time would be better spent advocating for laws that are formulated correctly in the legal framework. Though boring, more effective. I give this low odds of survival in the courts. Why not spend the energy on something that will succeed? This only will leave people disappointed when it gets overturned.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
joshAg 8y ago
We could say the exact same thing about corporations, too, that you said about objects, geographic features, and animals. The reason it makes sense to treat those things as if they were a natural person under the law is because it allows for natural people to group their common interest into a single legal entity that is separate from any individual member. So, take the lake eerie thing. Sure, you could write a law to protect the lake that focuses on natural people and corporations, but if something happens, say an oil spill or algae bloom, then each individual who thinks they are be affected by it would be bringing suit. in the case of a lake oil spill that's possibly hundreds of separate lawsuits for the exact same incident. Or, the lake could be granted juridical personhood and the law making the same protections could be written based on that personhood. If the same theoretical oil spill or algae bloom happened, there'd only be a single case instead of quite possibly millions. And that doesn't even begin to affect issues of standing and actual harm. If I'm some poor schmuck getting water from downstream of Lake Eerie and there's an algae bloom or oil spill, it's going to have to be massive for me to be able to prove i've actually been harmed by the spill and that the harm is enough to justify the costs of hiring a lawyer. Otherwise whoever caused the spill is going to either get the case dismissed because i can't prove i was actually harmed because of their spill, or they're going to argue that my actual harm is something like 86 cents because that's how much extra it costs for water filtration, so even with treble damages I'm entitled to less than the price of a large drip coffee. And even if you think, well, individuals shouldn't be bringing any sort of suit for something like that, it should instead be via the government, the government itself is just another instance of a non-natural person.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Corporations, and the government for that matter, are made up of people. Lakes, rivers, and forests are not. So there is that difference. The article itself is an editorial piece with scant details. Who is sued? One example is given of a lawsuit on behalf of a river in Ecuador, in which "companies" were sued. Who represents the river? The government? Who is paid the damages? The government? Are trial lawyers involved? What is their fee? Surely no potential for shenanigans there </sarcasm>.
  - jerf 8y ago
    "Corporations, and the government for that matter, are made up of people." And I'd emphasize, made of people who can have responsibilities. We can regulate a corporation, and the result is real people have to do real work or make real changes somewhere, or the regulation is meaningless. Treating a corporation like a big person makes sense in at least some ways. You may legislate all you like, but the river is not going to fill out an environmental impact statement in advance of its next flood. It's not a person. It can't have responsibilities.
    - munk-a 8y ago
      A river is made up of those who live along it, a farmer that dumps manure into it is effecting it - similarly the community downstream has certain rights when it comes to their waterway, they may be farmers that purchased access to the waterway with their lands, or residents that purchased their property with an expectation of being able to swim or even a home owner who is pursuing damages against the flood of a river where an insurance company needs to determine if an upstream private party was responsible or the river itself. Basically, I agree with your statement that a river doesn't have personal rights or responsibilities but those people effected by mal-treatment of the river (including, if no one else advocates, a state/local government) should have the right to protect against unrestricted mistreatment. Nothing that isn't a natural person should be treated like a person, everything outside of an individual should have separately delineated rights afforded to it depending on the type of object it is. We can sanely fix this problem (and citizen's united) by just agreeing to shift some definitions.
moosey 8y ago
> Objects, geographic features, even animals, don't have rights of their own. Humans don't either, in the most basic sense. The universe really isn't concerned with our well being. We can argue that our government offer us rights, but the natural world is about to test the validity of that right soon. We have the option of giving rights to natural objects and spaces, and arguably we have done so with the national Park system. I think we can, and should, do better than this. What form that takes I am uncertain of, but I am hopeful.
Vinnl 8y ago
> Objects, geographic features, even animals, don't have rights of their own. That, or the converse argument that there can be anything that has rights of its own, is here presented as an axiom that requires no further proof. However, I don't think it's that self-evident. If rights come with responsibilities, why do e.g. the mentally disabled have rights - what responsibilities to they confer to them? When someone can suffer, why would they not have a right to minimise that suffering, even if they're "just" an animal? The Constitution (I assume the US one) was made up by humans, and any rights it confers were conferred by humans. If humans also confer those rights to, say, lakes, those should theoretically be just as valid as others, I'd presume?
appleflaxen 8y ago
interesting point. it's also interesting, though, that governments and law enforcement are completely willing to treat objects as individuals when they want to confiscate it. my understanding of many civil forfeiture laws is that they "charge" the object with drug trafficking, or whatever, and then take it when the object doesn't mount a vigorous legal defense. (i'd be happy to be corrected by someone who understands this better than me; I'm just pointing out that it's a related legal issue) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... : Civil forfeiture begins when government suspects that a property is connected with illegal drug activity, and files a civil action:[20] The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes ... — Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007[20]
tim333 8y ago
Rights are somewhat arbitrary and given by law for things that lawmakers think should be rights such as the right to bear arms, or whatever. There are practical problems in giving rights to a lake in that you need human representatives of it to go to court but beyond that it doesn't seem that silly. While you say animals don't have rights, in the UK you can go to prison for cruelty to animals which seems quite similar to a right not to be treated cruelly.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

joshAg 8y ago

We could say the exact same thing about corporations, too, that you said about objects, geographic features, and animals. The reason it makes sense to treat those things as if they were a natural person under the law is because it allows for natural people to group their common interest into a single legal entity that is separate from any individual member. So, take the lake eerie thing. Sure, you could write a law to protect the lake that focuses on natural people and corporations, but if something happens, say an oil spill or algae bloom, then each individual who thinks they are be affected by it would be bringing suit. in the case of a lake oil spill that's possibly hundreds of separate lawsuits for the exact same incident. Or, the lake could be granted juridical personhood and the law making the same protections could be written based on that personhood. If the same theoretical oil spill or algae bloom happened, there'd only be a single case instead of quite possibly millions. And that doesn't even begin to affect issues of standing and actual harm. If I'm some poor schmuck getting water from downstream of Lake Eerie and there's an algae bloom or oil spill, it's going to have to be massive for me to be able to prove i've actually been harmed by the spill and that the harm is enough to justify the costs of hiring a lawyer. Otherwise whoever caused the spill is going to either get the case dismissed because i can't prove i was actually harmed because of their spill, or they're going to argue that my actual harm is something like 86 cents because that's how much extra it costs for water filtration, so even with treble damages I'm entitled to less than the price of a large drip coffee. And even if you think, well, individuals shouldn't be bringing any sort of suit for something like that, it should instead be via the government, the government itself is just another instance of a non-natural person.

ams6110 8y ago
Corporations, and the government for that matter, are made up of people. Lakes, rivers, and forests are not. So there is that difference. The article itself is an editorial piece with scant details. Who is sued? One example is given of a lawsuit on behalf of a river in Ecuador, in which "companies" were sued. Who represents the river? The government? Who is paid the damages? The government? Are trial lawyers involved? What is their fee? Surely no potential for shenanigans there </sarcasm>.
- jerf 8y ago
  "Corporations, and the government for that matter, are made up of people." And I'd emphasize, made of people who can have responsibilities. We can regulate a corporation, and the result is real people have to do real work or make real changes somewhere, or the regulation is meaningless. Treating a corporation like a big person makes sense in at least some ways. You may legislate all you like, but the river is not going to fill out an environmental impact statement in advance of its next flood. It's not a person. It can't have responsibilities.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    A river is made up of those who live along it, a farmer that dumps manure into it is effecting it - similarly the community downstream has certain rights when it comes to their waterway, they may be farmers that purchased access to the waterway with their lands, or residents that purchased their property with an expectation of being able to swim or even a home owner who is pursuing damages against the flood of a river where an insurance company needs to determine if an upstream private party was responsible or the river itself. Basically, I agree with your statement that a river doesn't have personal rights or responsibilities but those people effected by mal-treatment of the river (including, if no one else advocates, a state/local government) should have the right to protect against unrestricted mistreatment. Nothing that isn't a natural person should be treated like a person, everything outside of an individual should have separately delineated rights afforded to it depending on the type of object it is. We can sanely fix this problem (and citizen's united) by just agreeing to shift some definitions.

moosey 8y ago

> Objects, geographic features, even animals, don't have rights of their own. Humans don't either, in the most basic sense. The universe really isn't concerned with our well being. We can argue that our government offer us rights, but the natural world is about to test the validity of that right soon. We have the option of giving rights to natural objects and spaces, and arguably we have done so with the national Park system. I think we can, and should, do better than this. What form that takes I am uncertain of, but I am hopeful.

Vinnl 8y ago

> Objects, geographic features, even animals, don't have rights of their own. That, or the converse argument that there can be anything that has rights of its own, is here presented as an axiom that requires no further proof. However, I don't think it's that self-evident. If rights come with responsibilities, why do e.g. the mentally disabled have rights - what responsibilities to they confer to them? When someone can suffer, why would they not have a right to minimise that suffering, even if they're "just" an animal? The Constitution (I assume the US one) was made up by humans, and any rights it confers were conferred by humans. If humans also confer those rights to, say, lakes, those should theoretically be just as valid as others, I'd presume?

appleflaxen 8y ago

interesting point. it's also interesting, though, that governments and law enforcement are completely willing to treat objects as individuals when they want to confiscate it. my understanding of many civil forfeiture laws is that they "charge" the object with drug trafficking, or whatever, and then take it when the object doesn't mount a vigorous legal defense. (i'd be happy to be corrected by someone who understands this better than me; I'm just pointing out that it's a related legal issue) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... : Civil forfeiture begins when government suspects that a property is connected with illegal drug activity, and files a civil action:[20] The government simply files a civil action in rem against the property itself, and then generally must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is forfeitable under the applicable forfeiture statute. Civil forfeiture is independent of any criminal case, and because of this, the forfeiture action may be filed before indictment, after indictment, or even if there is no indictment. Likewise, civil forfeiture may be sought in cases in which the owner is criminally acquitted of the underlying crimes ... — Craig Gaumer, Assistant United States Attorney, 2007[20]

tim333 8y ago

Rights are somewhat arbitrary and given by law for things that lawmakers think should be rights such as the right to bear arms, or whatever. There are practical problems in giving rights to a lake in that you need human representatives of it to go to court but beyond that it doesn't seem that silly. While you say animals don't have rights, in the UK you can go to prison for cruelty to animals which seems quite similar to a right not to be treated cruelly.