On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
Isn't that what "first-class" is for?
