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

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#41

Post by avivo »

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…

There is a critical difference between most corporations and people, which makes them far more dangerous - for a corporation the "only" goal is profit. In colloquial terms, corporations are "psychopaths".

Corporations being psychopathic can be very useful for a number of applications (such as efficient resource allocation and rapid economic growth), especially given a regulatory system that ensures that the pursuit of profit provides utility to the commons. It's so useful, that we even require corporations by law to single-mindedly pursue profit - if they didn't, and e.g. your social security benefits were invested in those corporations, there would be no recourse if they spent their money negligently.

Unfortunately, when corporations amass enough power to control the regulatory system you have major issues, as there is nothing to control their "psycopathic" tendencies. This is a crucial reason why "corporate personhood" and other forms of corporate power should have limits - in order to keep our checks and balances functioning. If we fail to do this, profit maximizing entities will gain more and more control over the resources available to human beings.

So, while many aspects of corporate personhood are wonderful and convenient, we need to be very careful what powers corporations are granted.

[yes, I gloss over some details to keep this short: fiduciary duty conditions, clinical definition of psychopathy,..; but these don't critically affect the main thesis as far as I am aware]

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#42

Post by bluedanieru »

NoPiece wrote: post #40
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…

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.

Perhaps, but again, I'm not arguing that corporations should or shouldn't be able to do X, only that they have no 'rights' as such. If a group of people want to retain those rights, they can always act collectively without first asking the state for special treatment. And, of course they retain their rights as individual persons, no matter what.

Oh, and I totally read the article? Is this kind of snarky reply just sort of a default thing to do when you disagree with someone now? In that case: if you read the article, you will not find that it addresses these points I have made at all.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#43

Post by pinko »

marshray wrote: post #8
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.)

What if the passengers decline to produce drivers' licenses? Should the driver be guilty of violating the carpool lane if it turns out one of the passengers had a suspended license or were uninsured? What about a passenger who is validly licensed yet legally drunk? They couldn't legally drive a car. What about passengers with valid licenses who have no car? What if they have a working car but its tank is empty and th…

I don't really care; if we were writing the law we'd figure out a reasonable but inevitably imperfect policy for each question. The point isn't to get every possible situation right. It's to come up with the best-bang-for-your-social-buck heuristic.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#44

Post by marshray »

pinko wrote: post #43
marshray wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the passengers decline to produce drivers' licenses? Should the driver be guilty of violating the carpool lane if it turns out one of the passengers had a suspended license or were uninsured? What about a passenger who is validly licensed yet legally drunk? They couldn't legally drive a car. What about passengers with valid licenses who have no car? What if they have a working car but its tank is empty and th…

I don't really care; if we were writing the law we'd figure out a reasonable but inevitably imperfect policy for each question. The point isn't to get every possible situation right. It's to come up with the best-bang-for-your-social-buck heuristic.

I think whether or not passengers in a car pulled over for "driving in an HOV lane with suspected unlicensed passengers" are required to produce valid drivers licenses on demand is pretty important.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#45

Post by gte910h »

logn wrote: post #33
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 passenge…

You want to keep taxi's allowed to use the lanes because then taxis are as fast as renting a car, or owning a car, so you you do not do the above behaviors.

If getting to the airport took 2x as long in a taxi, few would use that.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#46

Post by malkia »

btilly wrote: post #11
malkia wrote: post #4

What about pregnant moms?

According to the California Highway Patrol, they cannot use the carpool: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.

From this I learned that a corporation, in US, is "capable of riding in his or her own seat" :)

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#47

Post by MartinCron »

beedogs wrote: post #26
MartinCron wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

comments like these belong on reddit, not here.

Ouch. This may be the only time that an critical comment from a stranger on the Internet has stung this much.

Point taken. I'll try to do better.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#48

Post by NoPiece »

bluedanieru wrote: post #42
NoPiece wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps, but again, I'm not arguing that corporations should or shouldn't be able to do X, only that they have no 'rights' as such. If a group of people want to retain those rights, they can always act collectively without first asking the state for special treatment. And, of course they retain their rights as individual persons, no matter what. Oh, and I totally read the article? Is this kind of snarky reply just so…

I didn't intend to be snarky, I really did assume you didn't read the article becasue you said the article ignored the legal and tax benefits, and the it does mention both.

If you believe that the government can regulate the free speech of a corporation, where does the limit end? Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?. It is safer to keep free speech as close to absolute as possible.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#49

Post by bluedanieru »

NoPiece wrote: post #48
bluedanieru wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but again, I'm not arguing that corporations should or shouldn't be able to do X, only that they have no 'rights' as such. If a group of people want to retain those rights, they can always act collectively without first asking the state for special treatment. And, of course they retain their rights as individual persons, no matter what. Oh, and I totally read the article? Is this kind of snarky reply just so…

I didn't intend to be snarky, I really did assume you didn't read the article becasue you said the article ignored the legal and tax benefits, and the it does mention both. If you believe that the government can regulate the free speech of a corporation, where does the limit end? Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a…

>Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?

Yes, that's exactly what it means! We do the same thing with unions, and with religious organizations that are tax-exempt. What makes corporations so special?

You are, of course, always free to decline the privileges granted to a corporation. Draw up some contracts between you and your partners and write whatever you want, whenever you want. If your newspaper is guilty of libel, you may be liable for that. If your newspaper goes bankrupt and owes money all over town, you might be on the hook for it personally. Accept that in the course of securing privileges natural persons do not enjoy, your corporation may be asked to give up rights that natural persons possess.

Much like patents and copyright, corporations are a legal fiction, invented by society, for the benefit of society. On all three counts, the balance of power has shifted heavily in favor of patent holders, copyright holders, and corporations. This does not indicate some natural law, but rather corruption in our own governments.

Re: Corporation not person in carpool lanes

#50

Post by NoPiece »

bluedanieru wrote: post #49
NoPiece wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't intend to be snarky, I really did assume you didn't read the article becasue you said the article ignored the legal and tax benefits, and the it does mention both. If you believe that the government can regulate the free speech of a corporation, where does the limit end? Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a…

>Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements? Yes, that's exactly what it means! We do the same thing with unions, and with religious organizations that are tax-exempt. What makes corporations so special?…

I don't really disagree about the shift in power, but it doesn't have anything inherently to do with the structure of corporations (liability shield, "person", tax status). If you want to disallow corporations from political donations, then you are blocking 1000's of small businesses from having a voice while allowing billionaires like David Koch and George Soros have unfettered access to politicians. Whatever your particular concern is rooted in, there is probably a general solution (e.g., public financing of campaigns) other than singling out corporations which are a useful and diverse group of entities.
Post reply on HN