On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, email@example.com wrote:
>Turmadrog, Renegade Balseraph of Technology <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I would say that entities are either persons or property, and that
>> the difference is that persons choose to be responsible. I don't
>> have any problem with a sliding scale, but it should be an
>> individual decision, not imposed from outside. That is, if the
>> parent or owner is willing to agree to the demand, a child or
>> pet should be able to insist that he, she, or it is *not* eating
>> that stuff, but continue to be irresponsible (i.e. not a person,
>> legally) in other ways.
>I agree with you about how to handle sliding scales, but it
>doesn't deal with the question of what happens when an animal,
>child, or adult wants full rights but others don't agree.
Certainly it does. If any entity wants full rights, and expresses that desire, it should have them. I fail, however, to see how an "animal" (as differentiated from a person) could desire full rights. If an entity can so desire, then I would say that it is a person.
-- Wolfkin. email@example.com | Libertarian webhost? www.freedomspace.net On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man; The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg.