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

Unexpected things that are people

bengoldhaber.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#121

Post by mkehrt »

otterley wrote: post #92

The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These differ…

United States of America v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#122

Post by coliveira »

metada5e wrote: post #4

I recommend reading the book 'For Profit' for deeper knowledge on this topic - the book covers the origin of corporations and the ideas lying behind legal personhood. It sounds like a dry read but it is surprisingly well written and as much about history as about law. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60568507-for-profit Criminal and Civil liability are the two topics to focus on - you will find that non-human enti…

> Common Law tends to be the primary mode of law globally

That's not even close to be true, except for former and present English colonies. Most of the world follows civil law that itself follows Roman law.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#123

Post by cuttothechase »

coliveira wrote: post #120
otterdude wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up wh…

A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.

Isn't this sort of defense a weak argument by the courts. If your abstraction is to override a well known common usage/function of a term, then the abstraction doesn't hold much water?

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#124

Post by mattmaroon »

otterdude wrote: post #104
otterley wrote: post #92

The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These differ…

I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up wh…

Corporations aren’t people in the literal sense which the 13th amendment uses, nobody ever said they were. They just have the ability to do some people things. They can have a bank account or sign a contract. They cannot vote or enlist or do lots of things people can do. (The technical name is ‘juridicial people’ and what they can or cannot do is spelled out in law quite well.)

Money isn’t speech, and no court ever said it was. The ads you buy with money are speech. What’s the difference between a Fox news editorial show or a right-leaning ad on Fox News? (The answer: who pays for it.) If news organizations are just things owned by people, what makes them more worthy of expressing opinions than other things owned by people? Just because they have “news” in their name?

You just think they’re half-assed because you have the cartoony idea of what they are expressed by media that doesn’t like them. They’re quite sensible.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#125

Post by mattmaroon »

sandworm101 wrote: post #102
otterley wrote: post #92

The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These differ…

Exactly. I expected reference to all sorts of things that have been held at customs. I remember one old case titled something like "New York v. a shipment of dildos." I also remember some state law where guns were 'persons'. If cops wanted to destroy siezed guns they had to go to court, where the guns would be represented by a lawyer who would argue for sale over destruction. (Arizona iirc)

That’s not a real old case, it’s an urban legend. You don’t remember the case, you remember reading some fiction.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#126

Post by otterdude »

coliveira wrote: post #120
otterdude wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up wh…

A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.

The definition for person is "a living human".

This argument is just ridiculous, a corporation is a corporation. That contains subsets of people who have rights (shareholders, employees).

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#128

Post by rcxdude »

arrosenberg wrote: post #87
jojomodding wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already the case. Or rather, a corporation can not (e.g.) commit murder or theft because that usually requires some physical action. That physical action will be performed by a human, who can then be found guilty. If he was ordered to do so by (e.g.) the board, the board will be held as accessory to the crime and cam also be found guilty. The problem is just that the board can usually claim they did not know,…

If they know about malfeasance and don't stop it, they are complicit; if they don't know about it, they are grossly negligent. In either case, they should be held accountable for the crimes. Maybe in an ideal world it would not be that way, but since we are seeing corruption run amok in corporate board rooms, it's clear they need a greater incentive to police their organizations.

There is already a standard of evidence for this: "Knew or should have known". Which covers needing to exercise a certain standard of care, but without the overly rigid definition of strict liability (something that tends to result in very stupid and unfair situations).

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#129

Post by toast0 »

otterdude wrote: post #104
otterley wrote: post #92

The first example about ships is inaccurate. A ship isn't treated as a person in the law; it's treated as the thing that it is. There's a specific type of jurisdiction known as "in rem" ("over the thing") that differs from the typical "in personam" ("over the person") that gives the Court the ability to dispose of property without needing jurisdiction over its owner (otherwise known as an ex parte case). These differ…

I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up wh…

> If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment?

Sports players are people, but their service is bought and sold by teams. Is that slavery, too?

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#130

Post by the_af »

coliveira wrote: post #120
otterdude wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am continually baffled by the "logic" behind laws and the justice system. If corporations are people, then how can they be bought or sold considering the 13th amendment? How can money be speech, if the constitution allows congress to regulate commerce, but prohibits it from abridging speech. It just seems like in a common law system we're forced to live with half-assed arguments that corporate lawyers dreamed up wh…

A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.

> A corporation is a person, not a human. Person is an abstraction used by law, but it has no direct relation to a human being.

Most English dictionaries define person as a human.

I think the legal concept of person ("legal" or "juristic" person) as applied to corporations is something entirely different that, by unfortunate coincidence, shares the same name.

Post reply on HN