3 ms·

Clearly a river cannot have legal rights. If the river bursts its banks and floods my house, can I sue the river? Clearly I cannot because how do I sue the rive

Clearly a river cannot have legal rights. If the river bursts its banks and floods my house, can I sue the river? Clearly I cannot because how do I sue the river, who represents the river and how does the river have money to pay me? The river cannot appointment executives to represent its interests. In reality the local government acts for the protection of the environment, so why pretend the river has rights? If you want cleaner rivers then pass legislation with appropriate level of punishment such as fines/prison.

devoply 7y ago
River could do all of these. River can become a corporation which provides water as its main source of revenue in return for money which is held in a trust and used to pay people employed by the river to carry out its business. There are many implications to this idea, but it seems pretty sound alternative to having a river owned by shareholder for instance who pursue a profit motive. The point of such an environmental corporation would be to ensure its survival over the long run, rather than shareholder profit. Could you sue a river, maybe, though the lawyers for the river would argue that the blame is not the river's but an act of god out of the control of the river and those who manage it.
- PhilWright 7y ago
  The river does not have a mind, so any decisions on what actions to take in the name of the river are actually conducted by a person/organisation. In that case it is the person/organisation that becomes responsible. So the river is just a pointer deference to another entity. Just like a corporation is a pointer deference to the shareholders.
  - devoply 7y ago
    As I said the point of the river, is longevity and therefore just as a corporation optimizes for corporate profit a corporation representing the river optimizes for the river's longevity. I don't see how much difference there is between any corporation representing the profit motive of shareholders vs. a corporation representing the environmental motive of a natural resource. They are both simply ideas personified. Currently people simply plunder natural resources where their longevity is an after thought and not really incorporated into the profiteering of their consumption. This has to change.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Why is the point of a river longevity? Left to their own devices, rivers change course and dry up. The key characteristic of a river is a flow of water not longevity
  - aljp 7y ago
    It could also be akin to the guardian of a minor, whilst a minor may have a mind, they wouldn't necessarily be in charge of making decisions regarding legal recourse, or in some cases personal health. If we pursue this train of thought, there could be some expectations for the "legal guardians of rivers" to justify what course of action they should take on behalf of such a thing, in that they may be expected to ensure the health and longevity of the river, and hopefully improve the quality of life for all living things in and around rivers.
smt88 7y ago
In the US, governments can put money on trial[1]. In the US, the same jurisdiction can be used to put any piece of land on trial as well[2]. > how does the river have money to pay me? The remedy at the end of a lawsuit may or may not involve money. Not all successful suits result in financial transfer. > why pretend the river has rights? The article addresses this. By giving rights to the environment, harming the environment is punishable by default, even if you come up with a completely novel way to do it. In our current system, you can harm the environment until someone notices, write a law or rule, and then stops you from doing it. There's precedent for other living things to have rights[3], so where do we draw the line? Why can't an entire, complex ecosystem have the same rights as a human or a monkey? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U... 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute#Naruto_et_al_v._David_Slater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

devoply 7y ago

River could do all of these. River can become a corporation which provides water as its main source of revenue in return for money which is held in a trust and used to pay people employed by the river to carry out its business. There are many implications to this idea, but it seems pretty sound alternative to having a river owned by shareholder for instance who pursue a profit motive. The point of such an environmental corporation would be to ensure its survival over the long run, rather than shareholder profit. Could you sue a river, maybe, though the lawyers for the river would argue that the blame is not the river's but an act of god out of the control of the river and those who manage it.

PhilWright 7y ago
The river does not have a mind, so any decisions on what actions to take in the name of the river are actually conducted by a person/organisation. In that case it is the person/organisation that becomes responsible. So the river is just a pointer deference to another entity. Just like a corporation is a pointer deference to the shareholders.
- devoply 7y ago
  As I said the point of the river, is longevity and therefore just as a corporation optimizes for corporate profit a corporation representing the river optimizes for the river's longevity. I don't see how much difference there is between any corporation representing the profit motive of shareholders vs. a corporation representing the environmental motive of a natural resource. They are both simply ideas personified. Currently people simply plunder natural resources where their longevity is an after thought and not really incorporated into the profiteering of their consumption. This has to change.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Why is the point of a river longevity? Left to their own devices, rivers change course and dry up. The key characteristic of a river is a flow of water not longevity
- aljp 7y ago
  It could also be akin to the guardian of a minor, whilst a minor may have a mind, they wouldn't necessarily be in charge of making decisions regarding legal recourse, or in some cases personal health. If we pursue this train of thought, there could be some expectations for the "legal guardians of rivers" to justify what course of action they should take on behalf of such a thing, in that they may be expected to ensure the health and longevity of the river, and hopefully improve the quality of life for all living things in and around rivers.

smt88 7y ago

In the US, governments can put money on trial[1]. In the US, the same jurisdiction can be used to put any piece of land on trial as well[2]. > how does the river have money to pay me? The remedy at the end of a lawsuit may or may not involve money. Not all successful suits result in financial transfer. > why pretend the river has rights? The article addresses this. By giving rights to the environment, harming the environment is punishable by default, even if you come up with a completely novel way to do it. In our current system, you can harm the environment until someone notices, write a law or rule, and then stops you from doing it. There's precedent for other living things to have rights[3], so where do we draw the line? Why can't an entire, complex ecosystem have the same rights as a human or a monkey? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U... 2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_rem 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute#Naruto_et_al_v._David_Slater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...