Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

frank_prajna t1_j5pso05 wrote

Reply to comment by corporatestateinc in On Whether “Personhood” is a Normative or Descriptive Concept by ADefiniteDescription

Can you explain to me how exactly a legal entity can gain personhood?

A corporation doesn't actually exist in any tangible way, it represents people working within a structure towards common goals...

Does having a logo make you a person?

I don't follow.

16

corporatestateinc t1_j5py8wp wrote

Corporations in the US, believe it or not, are persons. Though human foetuses and cetaceans, for example, are not. Really its so corporations can make claims, and have claims made against them

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

39

frank_prajna t1_j5q0vkn wrote

I understand that they have been declared as such...

Corporations and Government should both serve persons, making them people is stupid.

By making a corporation the same as a person you're essentially saying they have the right to exist, that we must buy their shit or they'll die... but that's how capitalism works.

If your product isn't useful you don't get a business.

10

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qbxbn wrote

Personhood is a legal construct. Its other things too, but the legal construct of personhood is where the rubber hits the road for enforcing rights, duties, privileges, etc.

14

Hippopotamidaes t1_j5qkzbo wrote

Ontically personhood has been and is used as a legal construct.

We can also consider personhood in a metaphysical sense.

9

frank_prajna t1_j5qet7j wrote

I'm saying, a company shouldn't have rights or benefits, it should have obligations only.

2

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qjryo wrote

Corporations shouldn't have the same rights as natural persons, but some rights are essential for practical reasons...

Off the top of my head: due process, excessive fines, right to form contracts, right to sue and be sued, right to own property, and right to counsel come to mind. First amendment is tricky, but hopefully we agree that the government shouldn't be able to censor newspapers, publishers or book stores.

Without these rights, corporate entities (including schools and non-profits) would cease to exist, but I think we agree that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as human beings.

9

frank_prajna t1_j5qoy00 wrote

A corporation is never responsible for anything, those actually responsible should be punished and have these protections...

−3

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qqfr8 wrote

Easier said than done. Who pays for the medical care of people injured by a defective product? The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman? Maybe all of them? Maybe someone else? If it's one or more individual, there probably won't be enough money to give all the victims the medical care they need and deserve.

The (main) point of a corporation is to consolidate the risks in one entity, the one who paid those people's salaries and directly profited from the product. In some situations the individuals can be personally responsible too, but that's generally very difficult to establish under the law.

8

CoderDispose t1_j5qubqw wrote

> The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman?

Even more importantly, let's say it's the manufacturer. The problem occurred because a software test fail was not noticed. Who's fault is it then? The developer who wrote the bug? What about the people who did the code review? Maybe the tester who didn't bring it up after the fact? etc. etc. etc.

4

frank_prajna t1_j5qy1qq wrote

Whoever made the decision to sell the product before it was ready.

No one in the line making the product is responsible, no one inventing or selling is responsible... we don't have a system where they're the ones bringing it to market.

CEO's get the big bucks, why do they get protections for not doing their job?

−4

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r00q2 wrote

Our system is not designed the way you think it should be. There's some variability between different countries, but for the most part every nation adheres to the principles I've outlined. At this point, all I can do is tell you to go to law school or audit torts and corporations so you can raise these points with subject matter experts.

5

frank_prajna t1_j5r1x8v wrote

You understand laws can be changed?

These will seem like atrocious notions one day.

−1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r0oeu wrote

That doesn't work. That would mean a corporation has an obligation to pay its employees, but not a right to sue someone who refuses to pay for a good or service, or the ability to own things.

2

frank_prajna t1_j5r2etx wrote

These people are making entirely too much money to have no liability.

6

frank_prajna t1_j5r2647 wrote

Again, people are making the decisions.

That's the difference between them and a company.

People are doing fucked up things because ultimately nothing will happen to them and the stock holders will be happy.

3

bumharmony t1_j5t13ma wrote

To my understanding personhood is in simplicity the abilities that makes an agent: the ability to create and follow rules and create a conception of good. And it is the atomistic type of self. Indivisible. That is why governments, companies or states cannot be persons because they can be divided into smaller pieces and most likely parts of them are ignored in a majority rule type of situations. So therefore to me representative democracy fails already for that reason.

1

WhittlingDan t1_j5qtm8u wrote

If corporations are people is the government a person?

2

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qw76a wrote

As with most legal questions, the correct answer is "it depends."

For certain purposes, the federal government is a person: U.S. v. The Cooper Corp., (1941).

In some contexts, city/county governments are, but state or federal governments are not because they are sovereigns. Cook County v. U.S. ex rel Chandler, (2003). This actually makes sense because most municipalities are "incorporated" in the sense that they're creatures of state law.

1

WhittlingDan t1_j5qtcrw wrote

How long have corporations been a concept and how did it start? I read that up until the early 1900s incorporation was something granted to businesses as a temporary status to product them in special circumstances and that businesses were never supposed to be corporations permanently.

3

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qxpdk wrote

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 481 (1819) arguably marks the beginning of the shift in sentiment. In colonial America, corporate charters were often time limited and required renewal, but the Dartmouth case essentially recognized the possibility that a corporation could be structured to exist in continuity and that subsequent governments could be limited in their ability to revoke a charter unless the original charter said they could. I'm pretty sure "permanent corporations" were not unusual by the late 19th century, but this isn't my area of expertise.

8

kgbking t1_j5sp7gc wrote

>In colonial America

When did America stop being colonial?

0

AlanMorlock t1_j5sutnn wrote

Several British colonies declared themselves as states independent from Britain and formed a new country. Fought a whole war about it.

3

pgb04001 t1_j5twib8 wrote

Yes, historians often refer to the Colonial Era, The Early Republic, Antebellum, etc., but the US came into existence as a colonial power, expanded across the continent, and then grew in military, economic, and cultural strength. It was and remains a colonial power.

2

WhittlingDan t1_j5uox6k wrote

We stoped being British but colonialism is something else. It's the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. The term country is used loosely and applies to Native American tribes and land.

1

AlanMorlock t1_j5upb4a wrote

We remain a settler state but int the way it iwas used "Colonial America" has a pretty commonly understood time frame that it encompasses and its less useful to try to be pedantic about it.

1

Nenor t1_j5snqsc wrote

It's a foundational decision for a legal system, for sure. But, having legal personhood for companies has a lot more benefits than drawbacks.

For example, if we didn't decide to have it, then it wouldn't be possible for companies to enter intro contracts. It would have to be just be one (or more) person signing the contract in his name. The companies wouldn't be able to buy equipment, it would have to be owned by certain individuals in the company. But since these individuals cannot enter a labor contract with it, they can leave at any time, taking the equipment.

Without personhood, you would also forgo the concept of limited liability. Thus, every investor would be fully liable for all debts of the company, not just the amount they want to invest.

Without personhood, you are also unable to sue companies. You would have to sue individuals.

There are plenty of other examples, but these are the most important ones.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j5t1ure wrote

all of those examples are good for capitalism and bad for society. that actually checks out for why we have them though.

−1

Nenor t1_j5t9qxy wrote

Strongly disagree. What good would it be for society, if you cannot sue a company? What about the consumption of all goods and services that society needs, which will not be produced without companies? Without it, basically everyone will need to fend for themselves about everything - produce their own food, own machines, own railroads, own airplanes, ships, cars, etc. (which will not happen, so society will have to make do without any of it). And for what? What benefit would we gain by letting go of this? Cannot think of much, certainly nothing material enough to warrant a serious consideration.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j5ueyr0 wrote

You made some wild conjecture here. I did not say that companies should not exist. But you cannot prove that a company needs to be a person in order to produce things. At least you have not tried to. People own companies. People can enter into contracts. People can be sued. The only thing a company getting to be a person does is protect the people that run the company from the liability of their actions.

1

Solutide t1_j60ne89 wrote

No it does not protect the people that “run” the company, it protect the people that “own” the company.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j63f6i1 wrote

a distinction without a difference but thanks for your interesting addition. Have you never heard of a board of directors removing a CEO based on shareholder votes? That's running the company by the people who own it.

−1

Solutide t1_j6c1x54 wrote

How is that running the company? By your logic, the president is voted by the American people, that mean to the people is running the government? That is called exercising ownership right. The shareholders don’t run the company, but they have limited control over it. You either lack the most basic understanding of how corporate ownership(and ownership in general) work or are being willfully ignorant to support your flimsy argument.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j6ijwel wrote

Are you talking about America? The country once described as Of the People, By the People, For the People. That country? The people aren't running that government? Stop proving my points and work on your own.

1

Solutide t1_j6jq5j1 wrote

How is that slogan equal to the people making all the decisions of the government? What do you think “running” something mean? If you own a car, then you lend that car to friend to drive, who do you think is driving the goddam car? Just bcs you own the car, and have the right to take back the car if you so choose, doesn’t mean you are “running” the car. And if your friend kill someone with your car without your knowledge, you don’t take responsibility for your friend action. Does that make sense? Or I suggest you go read a book or something. Its not my job to be your teacher.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j6kg9aa wrote

thank goodness that's not your job. I don't have any interest in baseless conjecture and whining.

1

WhittlingDan t1_j5qswv2 wrote

Can you murder a corporation? Can a corporation be put in prison or executed? Why can they be sold or owned by individuals if they have personhood?

0

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qyq1m wrote

Corporations can be dissolved under certain circumstances, that's effectively what happened to Arthur Anderson after the Enron scandal. 13A bans slavery and involuntary servitude, and 14th amendment applies to persons born or naturalized in the USA, neither of which restricts the ability to own a corporation. Moreover, one doesn't "own" a corporation, but rather one owns shares in the corporation. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, or at least it was until Citizens United...

6

Anathos117 t1_j5qzsqd wrote

> or at least it was until Citizens United...

Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate personhood. The decision was based on the idea that if a group of people pool their money they shouldn't suddenly lose their right to free speech. And the decision didn't even cover all corporations, just unions and non-profits that were strictly political in nature.

4

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r1hhv wrote

It's a subtle distinction, but you're right. However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.

I don't think there's a functional difference between restricting a sovereign's ability to distinguish between the rights held by natural vs. corporate persons and re-characterizing corporations as associations of natural persons that are entitled to the same rights as it's constituent members.

Edit: although the decision didn't apply directly to for-profit corporation, this only required those entities to establish a subsidiary entity to aggregate donations. It's a distinction without a difference.

2

Anathos117 t1_j5r5ots wrote

> However, I would say that describing a corporation as an association of natural persons is just a theory of "corporate personhood" by another name.

I wouldn't. Think about it this way: what if you wanted to put out a political ad? You obviously don't have enough money yourself. But if you and 10,000 of your closest friends pooled your money, you could. But how do you store all that money while you're collecting it? How do you spend it? If you give it to Fred no strings attached, there's nothing stopping Fred from keeping the money for himself. So you need some mechanism that gives Fred conditional access to the money so he can only spend it on the political ad. We call that mechanism a "corporation".

Citizens United recognized that the only practical way for people to engage in certain exercises of their rights was collectively, so restrictions on corporations specifically formed for political purposes were necessarily infringements on the rights of individuals.

2

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r7lmt wrote

That's how I originally thought the court would rule. A decision that permits aggregating small donations while rejecting unlimited donations from for-profit entities was floated by the FEC and explicitly rejected by the court. In other words, SCOTUS explicitly rejected a decision that would allow for your hypo but would restrict unlimited donations from for-profit companies. (Read section II D of the opinion, I don't have pincites).

1

Anathos117 t1_j5ra9w6 wrote

Did you actually read the argument though? The alternatives available to the Supreme Court were to strike down so many laws and rulings that for-profit companies could directly engage in electioneering, or carve out an exemption so conditional that it effectively wouldn't be useful for anyone else, therefore infringing on rights it shouldn't. And the Court couldn't find against Citizens United after the FEC made clear that they believed they could and would censor political books in the wake of such a decision.

1

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5rd56y wrote

I believe that a conditional exemption would have been consistent with judicial minimalism, stare decisis, and deference to a coequal branch.

Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).

I also think they entirely devalued the interests in actual corruption, perceived corruption, and foreign interference.

0

Anathos117 t1_j5rdsaq wrote

> Personally, I think Citizen's United is an intentionally overbroad ruling that's predicated on creating a false choice and erring on the side of our corporate overlords (look at their waiver analysis and tell me it's applied the same way in other cases).

That's a far different statement than your original claim that "Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, or at least it was until Citizens United..."

1

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5rfajm wrote

My argument: Citizens United characterized corporations as "associations of citizens" to reach a result that is functionally equivalent to saying corporations have 1A rights so long as they use a third party entity. This holding was not dictated by precedent, and the court consciously rejected an approach that would have adjudicated the question in Citizen's United's favor on narrower grounds without doing violence to the primary purpose of the statute(s) in question.

1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r1558 wrote

If the corporate charter gets revoked, it ceases to exist.

But then you have the problem of what to do with the assets.

1