AskBeehaw

2003 readers

2 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.

Subcommunity of Chat

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

thrawn21@beehaw.org

UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org

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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by alyaza@beehaw.org 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

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago

I wasn't trying to be condescending or antagonizing; this actually is an area I have knowledge about, and I was just trying to be helpful.

and suddenly what I said was “absurd.”

No, I said that laws related to this do not allow for "ad absurdum" interpretations of liability. The liabilities of juridical entities (legal persons) are laid out very explicitly within a given jurisdiction's laws, and certainly would not cover things which would otherwise already qualify legally as "acts of god" (i.e. natural disasters).