4 ms·

Something that (arguably) hasn't and can't have agency and awareness (arguably) can't and shouldn't be recognised as having these things because they don't. Th

Something that (arguably) hasn't and can't have agency and awareness (arguably) can't and shouldn't be recognised as having these things because they don't. Therefore giving them this in law is meaningless except as a legal device. Whether that's a bad use of law because it is meaningless, or a good use of law because it extends protection to things that need protecting (in our interests not theirs) is an interesting question and one I can't guess at.

FooHentai 6y ago
That's not quite what's happening here, at least as far as NZ law which I'm most familiar with. I can tentatively extrapolate to UK and US law since the fundaments lie in common. What you say is acknowledged - These things do not have agency and do not have awareness. Yet in allowing them legal personhood there is latitude in providing mechanisms to provide them with exactly that - Agency and awareness - such that their legal rights can be protected. This is where the establishment of a board comes in. In terms of legal precedent, this is not an entirely new concept. A person born with severe disabilities or entering into a vegetative state, or even murdered... All lack in the present sense (or even ever) agency and awareness. Nevertheless we have established legal rights for them. It follows that such principles might be extended further. I am uncertain it'll prove to be a beneficial persuit, since a general maxim in the legal world is that laws cannot directly prevent harm, only dis-incentivise future instances of it. For important natural wonders, prevention is key and reparations/justice don't really make sense.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > Yet in allowing them legal personhood there is latitude in providing mechanisms to provide them with exactly that - Agency and awareness - such that their legal rights can be protected One cannot imbue awareness and agency by human fiat, which is where why my mention of a legal device comes in. > In terms of legal precedent, this is not an entirely new concept ... such principles might be extended further Hmm. This is a good point indeed.
  - FooHentai 6y ago
    Agreed - It's at best a proxy, right? Yet to be shown how well those proxies will deliver an outcome that might be considered beneficial - Either to the subject itself or wider society (which IMO is the true will being manifested).
markdown 6y ago
> Something that (arguably) hasn't and can't have agency and awareness (arguably) can't and shouldn't be recognised as having these things because they don't. Do you feel the same about corporate personhood in the US?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Well, note that I kept saying arguably. It's possible that a corporation may be a kind of emergent intelligence, ditto in the natural world. Difficult to prove or disprove, but the option needs leaving open. I'm a brit so I thought that game me a handy get-out from answering you :) but in fact we have similar over here. I have a small company comprising basically a piece of paper and a number entered in a database of UK companies. That company has some kind of personhood such that me tsaking money from it illegally apparently is in law somewhat or fully (not sure) equivalent to stealing from another person. In answer, I guess as a legal fiction it's useful. As a reflection of reality - pieces of paper and a row in a database aren't people - it's pretty dumb. I'm ok with it as a device.

FooHentai 6y ago

That's not quite what's happening here, at least as far as NZ law which I'm most familiar with. I can tentatively extrapolate to UK and US law since the fundaments lie in common. What you say is acknowledged - These things do not have agency and do not have awareness. Yet in allowing them legal personhood there is latitude in providing mechanisms to provide them with exactly that - Agency and awareness - such that their legal rights can be protected. This is where the establishment of a board comes in. In terms of legal precedent, this is not an entirely new concept. A person born with severe disabilities or entering into a vegetative state, or even murdered... All lack in the present sense (or even ever) agency and awareness. Nevertheless we have established legal rights for them. It follows that such principles might be extended further. I am uncertain it'll prove to be a beneficial persuit, since a general maxim in the legal world is that laws cannot directly prevent harm, only dis-incentivise future instances of it. For important natural wonders, prevention is key and reparations/justice don't really make sense.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> Yet in allowing them legal personhood there is latitude in providing mechanisms to provide them with exactly that - Agency and awareness - such that their legal rights can be protected One cannot imbue awareness and agency by human fiat, which is where why my mention of a legal device comes in. > In terms of legal precedent, this is not an entirely new concept ... such principles might be extended further Hmm. This is a good point indeed.
- FooHentai 6y ago
  Agreed - It's at best a proxy, right? Yet to be shown how well those proxies will deliver an outcome that might be considered beneficial - Either to the subject itself or wider society (which IMO is the true will being manifested).

markdown 6y ago

> Something that (arguably) hasn't and can't have agency and awareness (arguably) can't and shouldn't be recognised as having these things because they don't. Do you feel the same about corporate personhood in the US?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Well, note that I kept saying arguably. It's possible that a corporation may be a kind of emergent intelligence, ditto in the natural world. Difficult to prove or disprove, but the option needs leaving open. I'm a brit so I thought that game me a handy get-out from answering you :) but in fact we have similar over here. I have a small company comprising basically a piece of paper and a number entered in a database of UK companies. That company has some kind of personhood such that me tsaking money from it illegally apparently is in law somewhat or fully (not sure) equivalent to stealing from another person. In answer, I guess as a legal fiction it's useful. As a reflection of reality - pieces of paper and a row in a database aren't people - it's pretty dumb. I'm ok with it as a device.