On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people. >> >> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are >> the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the >> game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in which case >> the "public" requirement failed to take effect. > > But partnerships _aren't people_. I'm saying our current definition is wrong.
They can be legal persons of Agora in the same way that real-life partnerships can be real-life legal persons. What's wrong with that? > No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have > rights, > and thus partnerships wouldn't. Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety. -root
