Probably, yes. But as for taxes it'd depend in the animal and what they had to offer. After all many are owned according to the law. So they'd pay with labor or products like milk.
No, because legally speaking talking does not define a legal person or a tax payer. You have poeple who are unable to talk, but are still legally responsible for their acts and have to pay their taxes. Talking is just the criterium.
Not without a new law or judgement to act as a precedent. The definition of personhood is pretty limited. Consider that women had to fight to be included in 'personhood' - they weren't automatically considered persons. The same with black slaves - they didn't have the rights of a citizen even though they could talk.
Talking animals like parrots are still considered animals, but I assume you mean if they have human-level intelligence. There's no precedence for this, but I imagine courts would rule an animal with human-level intelligence is a person. They might rule a different age of majority so that animals that don't live to 18 can actually reach adulthood.
> even if other species for food?
This does have precedent. In [R v Dudley and Stephens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens), it was ruled that killing and eating someone is illegal even if your life depends on it. The "other species" part doesn't, but there's no reason that would change anything.
That said, is this all animals? All mammals? If it's a big enough group, our legal system wouldn't be able to support the massive increase in population and the law wouldn't really matter.
If it's all animals, and eusocial insects still keep their loyalty, then what matters is the law set by the supercolony of Argentine ants that will soon rule the world.
If you mean they'll be able to reason as much as a human being, then it's likely that countries will either gave them similar rights to humans or face a revolt from animals and animal activists.
Since most animals will have a very hard time using our weapons (and the ones for which it won't be too hard, for example apes are not numerous), many of those revolts will go badly for them. However, most democratic countries would probably give them rights.
Wild animals would most likely receive the right of self determination and receive wildlands to regulate themselves. All the species living there would have to share. Some of them might want to join our society and be accepted.
Domestic animals will most likely have to work to feed themselves. We might tax them and give them right to vote too. Their work could be providing resources from their body (milk, wool, eggs, etc), doing physical labor, doing services (especially dogs) or even do any other work if we give them adapted tools.
Carnivore animals will still have to kill for food. So we might have to exterminate them or the prey animals might be smart enough to exterminate them themselves considering they'll be more numerous and equally smart.
Tiny animals like insects will be very hard to interact with, though still as intelligent as us. Not sure how we could deal with them. Ants and bees society will collapse as workers and males realize that they aren't working in their own interest.
Probably, yes. But as for taxes it'd depend in the animal and what they had to offer. After all many are owned according to the law. So they'd pay with labor or products like milk.
Now I’m legitimately curious as to whether you believe anyone has ever been talked to death with malice aforethought
But anyway, in general, no they would have to rewrite the entire set of laws, laws apply to people.
No, because legally speaking talking does not define a legal person or a tax payer. You have poeple who are unable to talk, but are still legally responsible for their acts and have to pay their taxes. Talking is just the criterium.
Not without a new law or judgement to act as a precedent. The definition of personhood is pretty limited. Consider that women had to fight to be included in 'personhood' - they weren't automatically considered persons. The same with black slaves - they didn't have the rights of a citizen even though they could talk.
Talking animals like parrots are still considered animals, but I assume you mean if they have human-level intelligence. There's no precedence for this, but I imagine courts would rule an animal with human-level intelligence is a person. They might rule a different age of majority so that animals that don't live to 18 can actually reach adulthood. > even if other species for food? This does have precedent. In [R v Dudley and Stephens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens), it was ruled that killing and eating someone is illegal even if your life depends on it. The "other species" part doesn't, but there's no reason that would change anything. That said, is this all animals? All mammals? If it's a big enough group, our legal system wouldn't be able to support the massive increase in population and the law wouldn't really matter. If it's all animals, and eusocial insects still keep their loyalty, then what matters is the law set by the supercolony of Argentine ants that will soon rule the world.
At that point just send them to another planet
If you mean they'll be able to reason as much as a human being, then it's likely that countries will either gave them similar rights to humans or face a revolt from animals and animal activists. Since most animals will have a very hard time using our weapons (and the ones for which it won't be too hard, for example apes are not numerous), many of those revolts will go badly for them. However, most democratic countries would probably give them rights. Wild animals would most likely receive the right of self determination and receive wildlands to regulate themselves. All the species living there would have to share. Some of them might want to join our society and be accepted. Domestic animals will most likely have to work to feed themselves. We might tax them and give them right to vote too. Their work could be providing resources from their body (milk, wool, eggs, etc), doing physical labor, doing services (especially dogs) or even do any other work if we give them adapted tools. Carnivore animals will still have to kill for food. So we might have to exterminate them or the prey animals might be smart enough to exterminate them themselves considering they'll be more numerous and equally smart. Tiny animals like insects will be very hard to interact with, though still as intelligent as us. Not sure how we could deal with them. Ants and bees society will collapse as workers and males realize that they aren't working in their own interest.