May 21, 2022

New York's Highest Court Weighs Question Of Whether Elephant Is A Person


Anonymous said...

OK, this is gonna be painful. Not only to me writing this drivel, but you may want to wear some kind of ‘eye-protection’.

Of course Elephants aren’t people.


But, what do I know. A totally inanimate abstract legal association called a Corporation seems to be a “Person”.

Mathematically: If A = B, then B = A. And by extension, If a Corporation is considered a “Person”, then a Person can be considered a “Corporation”.

A single person can run a Corporation.

It may be possible that Happy could run a Corporation.

Happy, or corporate legal hack working for her, both of whom have No legal ‘responsibility’ for the actions of the Corporation, may posit that her presence attracts many people (humans) to the Zoo, where she might rent space to operate her new-found corporate empire. She can hire (again-human) lackeys to do bookkeeping (even more than one set as needs may arise), housekeeping (bathing, and waste management), and most importantly she (or her representative) can contribute to her favorite politician's (or judicial representative's) election campaigns - specifically those who might grant her any number of things – like Tax Breaks, Deductions, Zoning variances, and… to be legally deemed a Person!

A ‘Circle-of-Life’.

Happy’s only corporate contribution need be nothing more than… flatulence.

She might even become a Politician.

Anonymous said...

I would accept the personhood of an elephant, long before I will ever accept that a legal entity, namely a corporation, is anything near a person. Just because the 14th amendment, has been corruptly applied, does not mean I have to believe their Elephant manure.