Rejects reality

My issues are with the content. The book fetishizes "indigenous" *religious* values, and the author confidently ridicules Western concepts of property. This dismissive tone only becomes more bitter as the book recounts all of the legal hurdles this movement has faced.

I see multiple legal issues with the kind of revolution the author hopes happens.
1. It's based entirely on emotional and quasi-spiritual appeals. Only oblique references to reasons why humans should care.
2. It acts as if romanticized "indigenous" concepts of property are going to overturn centuries of well-developed and entrenched legal tradition IN COURT. This is absolute fantasy in common law countries. You need statutes to do that.
3. Speaking of statutes, they're passed by elected legislative bodies. And executive orders come from elected presidents. That requires some cultural and popular support. AND laws are subject to rational basis review in the courts.
4. The "success" examples the author uses come from countries with far less limited governments than that of the United States.
5. Ever heard of Constitutional law? Too many issues to go into here, but I'll name the Establishment Clause. So adopting Maori spirituality as a basis of environmental law is out. (And you can't argue that Western property rights law is based on Christianity.)
6. A river has standing? Cool. What does the river want? How is the river made whole with damage$? This all just seems like a front for environmental groups to sue for damages where they haven't suffered a real injury.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

3 people found this helpful

Thoughtful

It shows there are some going in the right direction. Wish it would go faster, but there's some promise.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!