Corporation not person in carpool lanes • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#21

Post by crazygringo » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:27 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #2

Unsurprising verdict. However the judge's reasoning is very weak. I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car regardless of the availability of the carpool l…

Not entirely. If you're taking two children, then it's better than two adults driving the children individually. But if it's only one child, there's no alternative.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#22

Post by MartinCron » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:28 AM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#23

Post by adrr » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:32 AM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person.

470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#24

Post by borlak » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:35 AM UTC

How does the carpool lane relieve traffic congestion? If people could actually use that lane instead of it being some kind of elitist lane (which is what it feels like, I drive it in all the time (family)), traffic would be better.

The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave' problem.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#25

Post by DigitalSea » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:40 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #20

DigitalSea wrote: post #19

This whole case has been ridiculous from the start. It was pretty obvious from the start that this case wasn't going to end in the defendants favour, I honestly don't know why this guy has decided to waste the courts time with this. A stack of papers is not a corporation, the corporation itself might own the papers but paper does not encompass an entity. It's a carpool lane violation, not murder why can't this guy ju…

Huh? He did it intentionally to waste time and apparently has money to spare on the fight. Either way, there is now legal precedent at odds with the concept of corporate personhood. Presumably he wants this concept to go away and is now one step closer.

Such a shame when people don't put their time and effort towards things that matter. Like you know, helping people and making a difference. I am doubtful he'll achieve anything, but I guess that remains to be seen. He's so far failed once, I guess he can keep appealing and hope something happens.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#26

Post by beedogs » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #22

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.

comments like these belong on reddit, not here.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#27

Post by fleitz » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 6:46 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #21

btilly wrote: post #2

Unsurprising verdict. However the judge's reasoning is very weak. I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car regardless of the availability of the carpool l…

Not entirely. If you're taking two children, then it's better than two adults driving the children individually. But if it's only one child, there's no alternative.

Well in that case it could be argued that roads would be less congested than the corporation hiring a courier, taxicab, lawyer, etc to transport itself.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#28

Post by NoPiece » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 7:10 AM UTC

adrr wrote: post #23

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person. 470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc47…

You are right, but I do think it ties into the larger "corporations are people" thing that has been bothering people since the campaign finance reform law was overturned.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#29

Post by bluedanieru » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 7:39 AM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits.

These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American.

The beef is:

>people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively

A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A corporation is also a group of people who get together and petition their government for special treatment. This is not a bad thing as it is basically what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But, if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that.

I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#30

Post by forgingahead » Tue, Jan 08, 2013, 8:03 AM UTC

bluedanieru wrote: post #29

NoPiece wrote: post #5

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In thi…

Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits. These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American. The beef is: >people should not be deprived of their const…

> I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity

So, what are your opinions on mandatory union dues, and on whether recipients of government assistance should be allowed to vote?