Idiot stupiditySeptember 28, 2017 Tim WorstallLaw22 CommentsCorporations Have Rights. Why Not Rivers? Corporations are legal persons so that we can sue them…. previousMy word this is a surprise, isn’t it?nextJust such fun! 22 thoughts on “Idiot stupidity” abacab September 28, 2017 at 12:17 pm Corporations have responsibilities. Why not rivers? Geoff Taylor September 28, 2017 at 12:40 pm Corporations have banks. Why not riv … oh. Serge Lang September 28, 2017 at 1:37 pm Now I have witnessed everything that I could witness in my life. Diogenes September 28, 2017 at 1:38 pm Lawyers will give any assistance to part fools from their money Bloke no Longer in Austria September 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm Well of course in Ancient Greece, each river was a minor god in its own right. In the Iliad the River Skamandros pleads with Achilles to stop killing all these Trojans because their bodies are clogging him up. Skamandros probably wouldn’t have needed a lawyer today, as Menelaos would have been suing the arse of Paris and Priam anyway and not have to resort to getting his big brother to duff them up. BraveFart September 28, 2017 at 2:19 pm “I don’t think it’s laughable,” said Reed Benson, chairman of the environmental law program at the University of New Mexico. We’re not the only country with sectionable academics then Edward Lud September 28, 2017 at 3:17 pm This is all rather amusing, but it’s really just a misuse of the word ‘right’. I mean, misused in this way, buildings and monuments have rights … not to be knocked down or modified or whatever. Presumably a river equivalent is what these loons are after. I agree it’s nuts, but poking fun at the use of the word ‘right’ is to miss the target. Henry Crun September 28, 2017 at 3:39 pm Don’t tell the Murphatollah, he’ll be looking for ways to tax the river Ely. John B September 28, 2017 at 3:53 pm If rivers have Rights they must also have responsibilities… for example if they flood my house can I sue? If they drown someone can they be charged with murder? You see… this is the result of closing lunatic asylums and replacing them with care in the community. john77 September 28, 2017 at 4:59 pm @ John B Lefties don’t believe in responsibilities. Theophrastus September 28, 2017 at 6:21 pm Henry Crun The river running through Ely is the Great Ouse. There’s probably a Spud joke in there; but, alas, my claret calls. dcardno September 28, 2017 at 9:01 pm Awfully presumptuous of the Deep Green Resistance that they know the river’s preferences, or even that it wishes their representation; perhaps it would prefer to have me argue for a couple more dams to be built on it. Bongo September 28, 2017 at 9:58 pm Two men from by the Great Ouse paid for sex with a couple of shrews Said free exchange of labour Aroused their left-wing neighbour Who had not been asked for his views. Gamecock September 28, 2017 at 10:17 pm ‘seeks to hold the state of Colorado and Gov. John Hickenlooper liable for violating the river’s’ A capital offense. Prepare the gallows for Hickyblooper. ‘The suit was filed Monday in Federal District Court in Colorado by Jason Flores-Williams, a Denver lawyer’ This action is wrong on so many levels, the Colorado Bar should begin immediate disbarment proceedings against Flores-Williams. He is embarrassing them. Surreptitious Evil September 28, 2017 at 10:20 pm And embarrassing a feltch of USian lawyers is rather difficult. BniC September 28, 2017 at 10:24 pm GIven the amount of environmental and other legislation relating to waterways I’d say they already do have rights in a very broad sense, as mentioned with historic buildings etc. Agammamon September 29, 2017 at 1:26 am Well, mainly because corporations are a collection of people. People have rights, to make things easier certain collections of people are granted some legal privileges. Rivers aren’t made of people. Bloke in Costa Rica September 29, 2017 at 2:02 am This should fail immediately on grounds of standing, barratry and subject matter jurisdiction, after which the vexatious lawyer should be tied in a sack and thrown in the Colorado. So Much For Subtlety September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am It won’t be long before insane women are insisting on their right to marry them. Fiumisexuals perhaps. The wet soggy cutting edge of modern human rights. Richard September 29, 2017 at 7:58 am “Corporations Have Rights. Why Not Rivers?” They want corporations to have rivers? Fine, but is it really a big issue? Watchman September 29, 2017 at 11:57 am If rivers have a legal personality, we would have to establish their desires (corporations desire to make money for their stock holders – it’s a fiducary duty on office holders). I am pretty certain the one thing we can prove about a river is that it desires to get rid of the water occupying it. That that water is replenished by sources that are not the river is nothing to do with the legal personalised river, which will have clear definition and not include sources (tributaries, which will have their own identities, springs, rainfall etc). So basically there may be a very idiotic argument that the building of anything that blocks a river is agains the desire of the river, but it wouldn’t be difficult to logically argue that rivers would desire water to be removed from them – it is what they themselves do after all. If I can think of something that silly but clearly true, imagine what an actual lawyer could do… DuckyMcDuckface September 29, 2017 at 12:59 pm Bongo; that is just superb. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.