Idiot stupidity

Corporations Have Rights. Why Not Rivers?

Corporations are legal persons so that we can sue them….

22 thoughts on “Idiot stupidity”

  1. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    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.

  2. “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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Henry Crun
    The river running through Ely is the Great Ouse. There’s probably a Spud joke in there; but, alas, my claret calls.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. ‘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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    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.

  13. “Corporations Have Rights. Why Not Rivers?”

    They want corporations to have rivers? Fine, but is it really a big issue?

  14. 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…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *