Since the Internet began, people have been sharing lists of the weirdest laws in the world, even so, I can't get enough of these absolutely inane rules. Elistmania has a great top 10 of these terrible laws, the best of which may just be "Single women can’t parachute on Sundays in Florida."
Why in the world would this be a law, and how could it be legal to discriminate like this in modern times?
For more silliness, see the rest of the list.
http://www.elistmania.com/juice/10_most_ridiculous_laws_from_around_the_world.aspx Image Via Bloomsberries [Flickr]
It seems contrary to public interest, and I cannot find any applicable permit on the Forest Service website nor the NH state one, nor any reference to actual law text or court opinion. "Maintaining the national forest without a permit" seems like a pretty specific offense, so you would think it easy to find.
" Exactly how is giving MORE rights to an Immortal entity with unlimited lifespan, nearly unlimited cash, and who can't be jailed like a human serving human liberty?"
I dispute that it is more rights, it is by law and example fewer.Nevertheless, it serves human liberty for the same reasons and purposes that rights of human individuals do.
"And exactly how is this the ONLY option?"
It is the only option, because if my association with others allows the government to deprive us of rights, we are deprived of rights.
"Please explain rather than repeat some jingoistic term that someone told you."
I thought I did, and don't understand why you thought in advance that I would be jingoistic.
"PS-Since other countries Don't do this are you saying that the USA is the ONLY country that protects human liberty and that giving Corporations human rights is the only way??? Sorry but your BS doesn't pass the smell test.
Two part question:
A: I am not saying that the USA is the only country that does this, I am saying that it is present in common-law, civil-law, and asian legal systems.
B: Asked and answered.
" Retention of property was a State constitutional right at the time this decision was made NOT a Human right."
I would hold that rights exist independent of the state. A state or person may violate my rights, but they are not the state's to give.
"Human rights are derived through international treaty, mostly."
I REALLY hate to argue from authority, but I think at this point it is just easier to refer you to the 2nd paragraph of a document from the USA called the "declaration of independence".
Retention of property was a State constitutional right at the time this decision was made NOT a Human right.
Human rights are derived through international treaty, mostly.
Why can't you answer my questions?
Typical corporatist. Just repeat things rather than engage in thoughtful debate.
And Church, you need to get out and talk to people outside of your school who work for a living if you think the only people who have this opinion are academics.
I hear this opinion in the Army all the time.
In the US an early explication of this was when an English corporation owned some land in Vermont, and the state said effectively "we can take that away, because we are not violating the rights of a person". They were, albeit indirectly, violating the human rights of each owner of the corporation, taking their property without compensation.
Many of the same considerations that go into strong bill of rights protection for natural persons apply to metaphorical corporate "persons" as well. But this is not unlimited. In the US the right to free-speech does not extend fully to corporations, but freedom from search without a warrant generally applies. It is fiction to say we treat corporations exactly the same as humans. But for specific rights, if we do not do so, we end up violating real human rights of real humans.
Other countries DO do this, such as Germany and China. Even the very recent EU charter of rights grants specific rights to "natural and legal persons" i.e.: actual human persons and corperations.