32
Beehaw, what is your opinion on right of nature laws, which recognize natural entities as having "personhood" or legal rights comparable to humans? (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 2 years ago* by [M] to c/askbeehaw@beehaw.org
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

practical examples of this, if you're curious, include the Tūtohu Whakatupua (which declared the Whanganui River and tributaries as a legal entity), the agreement around Mount Taranaki (which grants it legal personhood), and the invalidated Lake Erie Bill of Rights (passed by Toledo, OH and was designed to allow residents to bring lawsuits on behalf of Lake Erie to protect it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

recognize [natural] entities as having "personhood" or legal rights comparable to humans

I'm against anything but humans being granted the same rights as humans.

We can discuss what legal rights should be granted to which entities, or which entities should share some rights, but conflating different entities like humans, dogs, corporations, mountains, or AIs, as one and the same thing, is a recipe for disaster.

It sounds to me like a case of "to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    These do not grant anything human rights, they grant things the status of legal personhood, which has a very specific set of actions that an entity is legally acknowledged as being able to take, such as signing contracts and owning property, as 2 examples. They are sometimes called juridical persons.

    You can't be charged with assault against a company for punching a building, or kidnapping or illegal detainment for stealing an object granted legal personhood.

    It doesn't literally treat (or conflate) these things as being the same as humans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent