Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corporatestateinc t1_j5py8wp wrote

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

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