44 ms·
> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly st
by bawolff 2y ago
> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given.
By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person).
Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.
- Teever 2y agoThe implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.
- tsimionescu 2y agoOn the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.
- Teever 2y agoWe are in complete agreement.
- sthatipamala 2y agoCorporations (which are legal persons) also cannot autonomously do any of those things. They only act through the stewardship of natural persons who serve in their interest. You could do the same for a forest by electing some trustees or whatever.