111–120 of 269 posts
It's specifically about corporations that own property in a specific town voting. So no you can't just spin up a bunch of LLCs to rig an election, this is about the rights of absentee landlords.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except we’re talking about Delaware, which is totally controlled by Democrats who also cater to corporations.
Don't play coy. We are obviously talking about the overall national political landscape, extrapolating from this one development to its part in a larger trend. The specific politics of Delaware (which team is the incumbent and how the state is openly corporate friendly) don't change that.
I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…
Does a corporation need healthcare? Can a corporation be jailed? Does a corporation have a finite life in which they can pursue happiness? Does a corporation have offspring it's trying to raise? Does a corporation have hopes and dreams? Does a corporation wish to visit a park or visit with their neighbors? Are you for real?
Much of the discourse on this topic involves muddled, contradictory thinking that simultaneously argues "corporations aren't people" and "corporations are exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them". These two premises cannot both be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours. > There is some reason they don't do this I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the…
"Protections of the corporate form"? You mean they aren't just proxies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.
Owning property through a corporation is trivial. 3 of my nearby neighbors are owned via an LLC (rentals). * Start an LLC/C-corp for a trivial amount of money. * Purchase land, but instead of paying with it via a personal check, you need a touch of foresight so you can "capitalize" the corporation you just started. Write the check from the corporation, instead of your personal checkbook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, why did they bother to take it to court instead of just transferring ownership directly to their persons and then voting as humans? If corporations are just proxies then why bother with the lawyers and the court fees and the time?
Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?
Why shouldn't they?
They're trading one benefit for another.
The individual house owners don't get all the benefits of an LLC for similar reasons.
It's specifically about corporations that own property in a specific town voting. So no you can't just spin up a bunch of LLCs to rig an election, this is about the rights of absentee landlords.
> So no you can't just spin up a bunch of LLCs to rig an election… Sure you can. You just have to sell them some land as part of it.
all corporations ultimately resolve down to individuals. either the shareholders or the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?
> Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners? Why shouldn't they? They're trading one benefit for another. The individual house owners don't get all the benefits of an LLC for similar reasons.
Why? What’s the logical basis for this idea that they should have to choose between these benefits?
I don’t understand why people have so much trouble understanding that a “corporation” is just a proxy for the humans that own and control the corporation. In this case, non-residents who own a house on the island can vote according to the charter. The charter just says that this doesn’t change because you move ownership of the house into a legal entity that some human then owns and controls. The actual grievance seem…