5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoCorporations, 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 agoA 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.
- kortilla 8y agoUgh, those aren’t rights though. There are also already protections for rivers enforced by governments (who have the rights to do so).
- wolco 8y agoCorporations are people. People work for corporations and hold roles. Lakes, rivers support people. Lakes can't sue but people could.
- headcanon 8y agoBring up a good point on downstream effects of an oil spill. Really a better legal unit in this instance would be watersheds (which includes the lake and all its upstream rivers and lands that contribute to the lake), but people are less knowledgeable about what a watershed is.
- djakjxnanjak 8y agoI believe what you are advocating for already exists in the form of class action suits. I don’t think your framework works, becuase damge to the lake is not the same thing as damage to people who interact with the lake, so the interest of those people are not really aligned with the lake.
- m463 8y agoI think the legal system is fundamentally different than other systems like scientific research, but people think they are similar. If you sort of say the motivation of the scientific system is to discover "truth", looking back at history you might discover there were a bunch of course corrections to address problems where we fooled ourselfs. In the same way, I can imagine some course corrections in the legal system to address "externalities" that prevent some problems from being solved. The corporation was probably the most important invention of all time. I wonder if similar legal fictions might solve the tragedy of the commons and other problems. I was told once "Remember. We have a legal system, not a justice system". I don't think anyone can say we shouldn't try to solve that problem.