Creator1

Oregon Senators are making arguments to grant the Columbia River and Mt. Hood Personhood.

I’m not an attorney and this is a legal term so I will try my best to summarize it:

In essence, this means you have rights as a human such as freedom to speech, right to own property, right to a fair trial, vote (if old enough). In short, the government recognizes you as someone who can own things, make decisions, and be held accountable for your actions. Interestingly enough in the United States, corporations and other organizations can also have personhood. This means that corporations can be treated as legal persons in many ways. They can own property, sign contracts, and have certain constitutional rights (such as freedom of speech which allows them to donate to political campaigns).

The difference however is we as human beings have to put in a lot more effort, a lot more sacrifice, a lot more thought into our actions for personhood. For instance, I can get called to jury duty, I can be drafted to serve my country, pay taxes (arguably a higher margin than some corporations),vote, organize protests, stand trial, and go to prison, corporations largely can’t (and wouldn’t) do these things. It also gets benefits for longer than a person would. For example, coca cola company has outlived most of our grandparents at this point. If you could hold on to assets for 200 years, would you ever sell real estate? Corporations can influence policies that can effect your grandchildren after you are dead.

If you think you’re equal constituents from your government’s point of view, try getting a meeting with your congressional representative, would you have as easy of a time as a VP at Microsoft?

The argument for personhood of a river or a forest or mountain seems ridiculous at first thought, but when contemplated, it makes sense.

Personhood affords the holder an immense amount of rights, including a trial, including protections. Placing these sacred and vital natural areas under personhood may afford these areas more protections as we begin to fully feel effects of climate change. Furthermore, the government can make the argument that some constituents do in fact view the rivers, trees, and other things as living beings that support the abundant life around it, giving more credence to the thought that these areas likely should have personhood (at least over a Corporation’s claim to personhood.)

One could also make the argument that the Columbia river has taken care of more people than Dutch Bros ever could (despite how good it is). If a vat of nuclear waste is dropped in on your local bro-estas, there would be a massive government response, and the corporation could write this off as a loss and likely get assistance relocating from the government using tax payer dollars. If nuclear waste leaks into the Columbia, Congress will call clean up efforts pork barrel spending, a waste. The government thinks keeping nuclear waste out of your water, is a waste of funds. So perhaps there is a need for personhood of natural resources. At the very least, perhaps it shows how ridiculous it is that corporations have personhood.