Florida is considering a constitutional amendment to declare that rivers have rights.

I am in favor of the goals of this amendment, and practical rules such as are likely to follow from it. However, it should not be formulated this way.

It is a confusion to extend "rights", as such, to anything other than intelligent beings. To exercise a right is to make a decision. A river cannot make any decision whatsoever, so it cannot exercise any right whatsoever.

If you think a river can have rights, next you'll believe that a corporation can have rights. Reject these absurd ideas!

It would be legitimate to decide that rivers have inherent value, that there is an imperative to preserve them in good state, that their health counts in some sorts of legal questions. Just don't call this "rights".