2 ms·
I intentionally took a radical (but possible) example. A more related likely result is NIMBYs using the precedent to give all other ecosystems 'personhood' and
by yyyk 7y ago
I intentionally took a radical (but possible) example. A more related likely result is NIMBYs using the precedent to give all other ecosystems 'personhood' and strangling housing development in lawsuits. Now that I consider this, judges could use other creative readings of corporate law to actually weaken environmental law (can we use eminent domain on the river? Does it have a natural monopoly on water supply and we need to apply anti-trust?).
Ultimately this is an improper hack, suborning the law for political ends. There are some evils that can justify even a take-no-prisoners approach. But better protection of river ecosystems? Are there really no better ways to achieve that?
- wpietri 7y agoAgain, I'm familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" line of argument. But here you're not even really making it other than to handwave at the possibility. I get that you don't like this. But all law is a political fiction for political ends, so your horror is not something I share. If you do have a better way to solve it, I encourage you to give it a try. Let me know how it goes.