5 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis is why conventional corporate persons all have a specific governance charter. It labels which human beings are accountable.