I’m not sure I agree with this focus on bundling. I think many courts focus on the capability of candidate-person, and the bundle is just a convenient set of things to evaluate the capability for adhering/benefitting.
connected with the capacity, not just to benefit from the provision of legal rights, but also to assume legal duties and social responsibilities
This is a good description—“it’s connected with the capacity” being the controlling clause.
A legal person in the United States has a right to free speech, they also have a duty not to infringe upon another person’s right to speak freely.
This is simply not true. Individuals in private spaces are generally free to limit others’ free speech. Even if it were true, they’d be separate things—right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak.
A legal person in the United States has a right to enter into a contract with another legal person to compensate them for services rendered. They also have a duty to pay, as specified in the contract, once the services have been rendered as promised. Until the contract was voluntarily signed, neither party had any sort of automatic claim to the other’s services and/or money. Thus, this is a bundle that was opted into.
A contract is itself a bundle. “enter into a contract” is a singular act, binding all clauses of the contract. This does not imply that bundling is a general feature of personhood.
I appreciate this series, but I do fear that it’s not formal enough in defining terms and listing requisite features of different kinds of personhood.
Hey thanks for the feedback. Very useful and constructive criticism, thanks for taking the time to type it out.
Regarding , “right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak” it’s not that a right which is bundled with a duty is dependent upon that duty, in the sense that if you fail the duty you lose that right. It’s that the right is bundled with the duty in the sense that if you fail the duty, you suffer consequences. It’s not possible to claim the right without also being bound by the duties.
That said, I think you bring up a good point that this bundle is not focused around free speech, specifically, but more around general constitutional rights. I have edited the example to reflect this. There is a later section “understanding rights and duties” which elaborates a bit more on the nature of consequences for failing to hold to duties, but given I’m posting this piecemeal I’m also adding in some clarification to this chapter.
Your point about private spaces is correct, however you’re not infringing on another person’s right to free speech when you regulate someone else’s speech as a prerequisite to enter/occupy private space. There’s an old adage “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have a right to free speech, but it does not supercede your right to control who enters/occupies your private property. I will add a line explaining this exception as a footnote.
On contracts I have changed the phrasing in order to be more specific and accurate based on your feedback. It now reads “This gives them the right to compel that person to abide by the terms of the contract. It also obligates them to a duty to pay, as specified in the contract, once the services have been rendered as promised. Until the contract was voluntarily signed, neither party had any sort of automatic claim to the other’s services and/or money, or the right to compel them to abide by the terms of the contract, or the duty to abide by those terms themselves. Thus, this is a bundle that was opted into.”
I think your point about bundling not being a general feature of personhood is also relevant, it’s clear my writing is not leaving readers with the impression I was hoping for. Bundling isn’t a “feature” of personhood, rather bundle theory is just a commonly used lens through which courts and legal scholars view rights and duties when assessing legal personality. I will add a line explaining this as well.
I’m not sure I agree with this focus on bundling. I think many courts focus on the capability of candidate-person, and the bundle is just a convenient set of things to evaluate the capability for adhering/benefitting.
This is a good description—“it’s connected with the capacity” being the controlling clause.
This is simply not true. Individuals in private spaces are generally free to limit others’ free speech. Even if it were true, they’d be separate things—right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak.
A contract is itself a bundle. “enter into a contract” is a singular act, binding all clauses of the contract. This does not imply that bundling is a general feature of personhood.
I appreciate this series, but I do fear that it’s not formal enough in defining terms and listing requisite features of different kinds of personhood.
Hey thanks for the feedback. Very useful and constructive criticism, thanks for taking the time to type it out.
Regarding , “right to free speech does not depend upon the duty to let others speak” it’s not that a right which is bundled with a duty is dependent upon that duty, in the sense that if you fail the duty you lose that right. It’s that the right is bundled with the duty in the sense that if you fail the duty, you suffer consequences. It’s not possible to claim the right without also being bound by the duties.
That said, I think you bring up a good point that this bundle is not focused around free speech, specifically, but more around general constitutional rights. I have edited the example to reflect this. There is a later section “understanding rights and duties” which elaborates a bit more on the nature of consequences for failing to hold to duties, but given I’m posting this piecemeal I’m also adding in some clarification to this chapter.
Your point about private spaces is correct, however you’re not infringing on another person’s right to free speech when you regulate someone else’s speech as a prerequisite to enter/occupy private space. There’s an old adage “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”. I have a right to free speech, but it does not supercede your right to control who enters/occupies your private property. I will add a line explaining this exception as a footnote.
On contracts I have changed the phrasing in order to be more specific and accurate based on your feedback. It now reads “This gives them the right to compel that person to abide by the terms of the contract. It also obligates them to a duty to pay, as specified in the contract, once the services have been rendered as promised. Until the contract was voluntarily signed, neither party had any sort of automatic claim to the other’s services and/or money, or the right to compel them to abide by the terms of the contract, or the duty to abide by those terms themselves. Thus, this is a bundle that was opted into.”
I think your point about bundling not being a general feature of personhood is also relevant, it’s clear my writing is not leaving readers with the impression I was hoping for. Bundling isn’t a “feature” of personhood, rather bundle theory is just a commonly used lens through which courts and legal scholars view rights and duties when assessing legal personality. I will add a line explaining this as well.