4 ms·
Corporations have the advantage that it's clear who speaks in their behalf. If you give legal status to rivers -- or trees, or whales -- what you're really doi
by cperciva 8y ago
Corporations have the advantage that it's clear who speaks in their behalf.
If you give legal status to rivers -- or trees, or whales -- what you're really doing is giving legal standing to someone who claims to be acting on their behalf. Who gets to decide who represents these persons?
- throwaway2048 8y agoWho speaks on the behalf of the mentally handicapped, and children without parents? Are they people?
- cperciva 8y agoThe simple answer is that we have over a thousand years of jurisprudence to answer that question. In some cases it's the next of kin; in some cases it's a state-appointed guardian. But even with the benefit of all that law we still have many courtroom arguments over who gets to decide what is best for individuals who are only partially able to speak for themselves. When we move beyond natural persons and corporations, we have far less jurisprudence to rely upon and they can't express their desires at all, so it's harder on both counts.
- disordinary 8y agoIwi.
- disordinary 8y agoI dug further and there will be two people who are in charge of representing the river one nominated by the government and the other by local Iwi.
- oska 8y ago> what you're really doing is giving legal standing to someone who claims to be acting on their behalf This does not necessarily follow.