Legal entities

• Legislate to protect individual rights at expense of communal rights.
• Legislate to protect communal right at expense of individual rights.

Is this not the existential question of society, and its checks and balances? However, the context in which this discussion takes place is itself questionable. In that it presupposes the human being to be a legal entity, and then deals with the issue from a legalistic perspective. As the legal systems grow in power, and, in the end, define the individual (and community) rights and obligations whilst the only obligation the individual should have besides to himself is to his community, beginning with his family, and moving outward further and further. To become global in extent, requires a spiritual component which lacks in most societal conversations today.

The essential issue today is that the human has become a legal entity, and thus has slowly stripped humanity of any sort of power of what it means to be human. For that has been overridden by legally (and medically) backed definitions of what it means to be human.

This produces the absurd situation of where a legal fiction—one could think of it as a template waiting for "activation"—defined as human. That is how it is possible to define non-human artifacts, like the corporation – a purely imaginary entity, and an AI robot named Sophia, as "human"—allowing the legal right to "fit" into the template defined as human. The meaning of this is that the only system in which a human and a non-living being can have equivalence in meaning and rights is a system that deals in objects that are dead. So actually, it was not that the corporation that was looked at as a living thing, but the human that was already defined as a "dead", a purely legal, make believe, entity. For the truth is that the only truly human system has to be a living system.