Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporation not person in carpool lanes

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#31

Post by bluedanieru »

forgingahead wrote: post #30
bluedanieru wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how unions are expected to behave? Also important.

I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up their right to vote in principal, although America would cease to be a democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome (disenfranchisement of the poor, eventual oppression without any means of placation of said poor, probable rebellion) would be good for society, so I don't think we should do it.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying "corporations receive special treatment and so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns". I'm saying "corporations receive special treatment, and I have no problem with putting stipulations on that". All I'm arguing against here is the meme that a corporation is "just a group of people". It is not.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#32

Post by gyardley »

DigitalSea wrote: post #25
jrockway wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're misunderstanding both the issue and the motivations of the person.

This person is not trying to avoid a ticket for riding alone in the carpool lane. He does not want to avoid that ticket. If he avoids the ticket because a judge accepts his logic and agrees that corporations are people, he has failed.

This person is trying to demonstrate that corporations are not in fact people by use of an absurdity, and probably intends to take the case as high in the judicial system as he can. He wants to get the judiciary to rule that no, corporations aren't people because he disagrees with the recent Citizens United ruling, which found that corporations were people, and therefore had free speech rights and therefore could make practically unlimited contributions to PACs.

It's not my personal politics, but some people believe trying to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics would help a lot of people and make a huge difference. This guy is not at all the time-wasting weasel you think he is.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#33

Post by logn »

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…

All unlicensed passengers would create more traffic by taking a taxi alone. I think the only ones not allowed in the carpool lane should be a taxi with one passenger (of course, in addition to the lone drivers).

However, you could extend the logic further by saying that a lone taxi driver looking for a better fare causing a second taxi to pick up the unlicensed driver causes more traffic than a taxi with one passenger. So I've neatly saved the current carpool lane rules.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#34

Post by spc476 »

DigitalSea wrote: post #25
jrockway wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about Nike vs. Kasky? Nike claimed it could lie as its expression of Free Speech (as a person), but Kasky thought otherwise. Supreme Court didn't decide so it's still up in the air. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Kasky)

The issue seems pretty important to me.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#35

Post by littlegiantcap »

bluedanieru wrote: post #31
forgingahead wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how unions are expected to behave? Also important. I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up their right to vote in principal , although America would cease to be a democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome (disenfranc…

If you've ever worked in a union shop in a state that isn't right to work, you have no say in the matter of union dues. If 50% + 1 vote to enact a union you're required to pay the dues.This is of course different in right to work states where you can have so called split shops.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#36

Post by fulafel »

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…

I'm not from the US but doesn't the "carpool" term imply exactly this definition - people who would otherwise driving in separate cars.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#37

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ghshephard wrote: post #10
pinko wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, insofar as the goal is to reduce cars on the road, it seems entirely sensible to me to exclude children -- or anyone without a drivers license -- from counting towards the passenger threshold. I'd be all for having to produce N valid licenses in the car to avoid the ticket, rather than N human bodies. (That also neatly sidesteps the issue of corporate personhood.)

Should Taxi's be allowed to drive in the Carpool lane with a single passenger? Here, we have a situation in which the driver wouldn't normally be on the road.

Relying on a taxi DOES reduce congestion: think about it, I could have chosen to rent a car at the airport and drive for my entire trip, but instead, I took a taxi to my hotel and walked/used transit a lot. Or...I could have bought a car, use that a lot, but instead I decide I only need such a luxury infrequently, and decide to rely on taxis occasionally.

Regardless, I live in a heavy taxi city and there is no such thing as a carpool lane (nor would it be very useful since most cars would have at least 2 passengers).

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#38

Post by ljf »

forgingahead wrote: post #30
bluedanieru wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ouch, I doubt (for example) the farmers would be pleased about that. And they are a pretty huge voting block! Or do you just mean welfare?

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#39

Post by gnud »

borlak wrote: post #24

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 ca…

It tries to relieve congestion by reducing the number of cars on the road, not by improving road capacity.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#40

Post by NoPiece »

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…

If you read the article, it doesn't ignore those facts. Those benefits are the point of corporations, and the "personhood" a side effect.

Sure there are strings attached, but speech goes directly to the rights of the collective. Would you support a law banning corporations from printing newspapers or newsletters? You have to be careful when you start taking away the most basic rights.

Post reply on HN