3 ms·

The creation of new personhood, the attachment of legal rights to what was previously a non-person, is a very dangerous game. It sounds in both abortion and ani

The creation of new personhood, the attachment of legal rights to what was previously a non-person, is a very dangerous game. It sounds in both abortion and animal rights. If a non-sentient river can be a person, why not a whale? Why not the wild animals that use this river? As living beings one would assume they were due more rights than the river.

brudgers 3y ago
Yes. Why not? Because corporations are persons with constitutional rights under US law, if there is a slippery slope this is not where it starts. Animal rights are one of two important philosophical movements from the second half of the 20th century. Copy-left is the other (and the easier one).
- csande17 3y ago
  That actually makes me wonder: how, if at all, is this different from creating a government agency or non-profit corporation or whatever, giving it ownership of the river, and chartering it to protect the river? Such an entity would have the same "legal personhood" rights, and its leadership / officers would do pretty much the same thing as the "guardians" discussed in the article. And it avoids all the goofy questions of whether the river itself can be guilty of strict-liability offenses or liable for flooding damage or whatever.
  - brudgers 3y ago
    I am not a lawyer. If an informed opinion regarding the your proposed alternative matters, hire a lawyer with expertise in such matters. On the other hand, if it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. Instead I have some training in philosophy. It gives me some experience with slippery slope arguments, the philosophical rationales for animal rights, and some other equally useful (or useless) ideas. But insofar as I understand the common law, persons are strictly liable for matters of strict liability and “being guilty” would require a criminal act (e.g. criminal negligence). But again, hire a lawyer if it matters etc.
    - pyuser583 3y ago
      This is why conventional corporate persons all have a specific governance charter. It labels which human beings are accountable.
bawolff 3y ago
I dont think its a slippery slope. We've had non natural persons in law going back to the romans. The problematic part here is, how do you determine what a river "wants". Maybe it wants to be polluted the way some humans want to smoke. Ok, maybe not, but still, it seems like this is the wrong tool for the job. Why not just use some sort of environmental easement, or pass some law making it a protected river.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  There are multiple slippery slopes, some good, some bad. It’s a slippery slope to a national park system. It’s also a slippery slope to a public-private partnership to maintain natural sites. Both are great. It’s also a slippery slope to a system where natural entities receives court appointed “guardians”, who sue and defend based in the interests of their client, whatever that means. That would be a mess. There really needs to be some sort of board, selected by parties with interests in the well-being of the river. Or just a regular old national park.
pyuser583 3y ago
Legally, “personhood” just means the right to own property. Companies, charities, and governments are all legal persons. I could form an LLC and that would be a person. There’s nothing about legal personhood that implies a right to continues existence. It might make sense for certain natural entities to posses legal personhood. It would probably make for sense for there to be some kind of public interest real-estate trust.

brudgers 3y ago

Yes. Why not? Because corporations are persons with constitutional rights under US law, if there is a slippery slope this is not where it starts. Animal rights are one of two important philosophical movements from the second half of the 20th century. Copy-left is the other (and the easier one).

csande17 3y ago
That actually makes me wonder: how, if at all, is this different from creating a government agency or non-profit corporation or whatever, giving it ownership of the river, and chartering it to protect the river? Such an entity would have the same "legal personhood" rights, and its leadership / officers would do pretty much the same thing as the "guardians" discussed in the article. And it avoids all the goofy questions of whether the river itself can be guilty of strict-liability offenses or liable for flooding damage or whatever.
- brudgers 3y ago
  I am not a lawyer. If an informed opinion regarding the your proposed alternative matters, hire a lawyer with expertise in such matters. On the other hand, if it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. Instead I have some training in philosophy. It gives me some experience with slippery slope arguments, the philosophical rationales for animal rights, and some other equally useful (or useless) ideas. But insofar as I understand the common law, persons are strictly liable for matters of strict liability and “being guilty” would require a criminal act (e.g. criminal negligence). But again, hire a lawyer if it matters etc.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    This is why conventional corporate persons all have a specific governance charter. It labels which human beings are accountable.

bawolff 3y ago

I dont think its a slippery slope. We've had non natural persons in law going back to the romans. The problematic part here is, how do you determine what a river "wants". Maybe it wants to be polluted the way some humans want to smoke. Ok, maybe not, but still, it seems like this is the wrong tool for the job. Why not just use some sort of environmental easement, or pass some law making it a protected river.

pyuser583 3y ago
There are multiple slippery slopes, some good, some bad. It’s a slippery slope to a national park system. It’s also a slippery slope to a public-private partnership to maintain natural sites. Both are great. It’s also a slippery slope to a system where natural entities receives court appointed “guardians”, who sue and defend based in the interests of their client, whatever that means. That would be a mess. There really needs to be some sort of board, selected by parties with interests in the well-being of the river. Or just a regular old national park.

pyuser583 3y ago

Legally, “personhood” just means the right to own property. Companies, charities, and governments are all legal persons. I could form an LLC and that would be a person. There’s nothing about legal personhood that implies a right to continues existence. It might make sense for certain natural entities to posses legal personhood. It would probably make for sense for there to be some kind of public interest real-estate trust.