Mother Earth to Win Equal Rights With Humans Under Bolivian Law
If we accept the legal fiction of corporate personhood, why not extend rights to the Earth as well?
That is exactly what Bolivia is doing.
Mother Earth To Be Given Rights Equal to Humans In New Bolivian Law
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 04.11.11Bolivia is about to pass laws granting all of nature equal rights to human beings. The laws were first proposed after the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and show the deep differences in zeitgeist between Bolivia and, well, pretty much every other nation-state on the planet.
Rights enshrined into law include:
The right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”. (The Guardian)
The new law goes on to articulate how Mother Earth, Pachamama is, “sacred, fertile and the source of life that feeds and cares for all living beings in her womb. She is in permanent balance, harmony and communication with the cosmos. She is comprised of all ecosystems and living beings, and their self-organization.”
That view is rooted in the indigenous beliefs of the Bolivian people and has much in common with the beliefs of indigenous peoples throughout the world–and while described somewhat differently, is roughly similar to traditional Hindu beliefs about all of existence being sacred, worthy of reverence, as well as pre-Christian beliefs of European peoples.
Brilliant to balance that, against the belief that a corporation is a person too…
After all, nature is the ultimate job creator.
If corporations are not persons, we should probably quit taxing them since there is no taxation allowed in the USA without representation.
Right on, Frank! And since corporations aren’t people, they also cannot hold copyrights, or be represented in court, or enter into contracts. Awesome!
Now I have a problem. Which stupid part of the stupidest comment of 2012 do I comment on?
“since there is no taxation allowed in the USA without representation.”
Now I’m starting to think Frank Knotts is a fictional character. Any real person living in Sussex knows exactly what it says on District of Columbia license plates, and why.
“Slavery was the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. …”-Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan
What part of corporate personhood to you find disagreeable? The primary impact of corporate personhood is that corporations have the same rights to due process of law as an individual. Without that, anytime someone sued a corporation, regardless of how meritorious or frivolous the suit, the individual would always win.
Oh, wait, that’s what you want, isn’t it?
Idiot, Where do I disagree? As a capitalist I’m saying that extending the same rights to the Earth seems like a good idea.
As usual all he has is half-assed straw man arguments.
Actually Dana, since a corporation is made up of people, one could sue the people running the corporation. They are the ones responsible.
The idea that pieces of paper with president’s printed upon them, have more of a say in running this nation, than a human being working to improve his family, is simply, for lack of a better word….. dumb…
I am not sure about all these other comments. I am here to comment on the Bolivian “New Law” posted by Jason330. THANK YOU Jason 330 and THANK GOD and all the ET Protectors of our MOTHER “EARTH”… Finally looks like Bolivia IS Leading the World on simple plain common respect for where we live as a race of human beings!!! This is what ” Corperate” Americans look like to me… A whole big bunch of really spoiled arrogant teenages trashing their whole enviornment. Like really spoiled rotten kids who go to the beach and think its a parking lot. They get drunk and leave their Litter everywhere. Who the blank cares!!!”Our Mom will pick up and clean up, lets just party and steal more whatever… Its like that the big oil companies they just robe and steal and trash the provider (OUR MOTHER EARTH)everywhich way they choose, all in the name of (providing for the consumer) what a hugh really tragic joke, smoke and mirrors just don’t work anymore…The Real people are WAKING UP , so move on out you big bunch of spoiled rotten teenagers…Our Mother is taking back what was stolen.THANK A TRILLION BOLIVIA…
Most Sincerely, Freedom Fidler
Jason’s throwaway line at the beginning of his article points out an inherent flaw in the reasoning of this law. Corporations have actual human beings leading them, and human beings taking decisions for the corporation as a whole. Well, unless Pachamama decides to appear in person, that means that, yup, some human being is going to have to speak for the goddess, and take action for her.
The article Jason quoted presented only a small part of the Guardian article, and my initial impression, from that, and based on our American legal experiences, was that every crackpot environmentalist would be going to court, to stop people from cutting the grass or building dams or mining coal, were such a law passed here. At least the Bolivarians aren’t stupid enough to have that problem.
Translation: the new law might give the rights to Pachamama, but it gives the power to the government.
Bolivia is a poor country, but it does have some wealth. However, its primary sources of wealth are tin and silver, both extracted by mining, mining of some other metals, as well as crude oil and natural gas production. Other than coca, the plant basis of cocaine, Bolivia’s primary sources of wealth for foreign trade are precisely the things that this new law could inhibit.
Oh, well, no one ever said that socialists were particularly bright. 🙂
Corporations have actual human beings leading them
The whole reason corporations exist is to allow those human beings to reap profits from their actions while protecting them from any negative consequences of their actions. We may need to rethink this.
I hate to be the one to point this out to Dana, but the Earth is populated by human beings.
Does that include Smyrna?
“What part of corporate personhood to you find disagreeable? The primary impact of corporate personhood is that corporations have the same rights to due process of law as an individual. Without that, anytime someone sued a corporation, regardless of how meritorious or frivolous the suit, the individual would always win.”
Hogwash. Many European countries don’t recognize the personhood of corporations, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can have carte blanche in a lawsuit. Principals of merit and justice still apply. What you say is a complete non sequitur.