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

141–150 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#141

Post by anon291 »

otterdude wrote: post #133
chemotaxis wrote: post #5

Wouldn't personal property in the US fall under the same criteria, in the sense that the government can sue the property itself (civil forfeiture)? But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. If they don't exist, Microsoft is no longer a distinct entity; it's 200,000 people who for some reason talk to each other, and you can't really audit their finances, punish them collectively,…

The answer if for congress to make a legal definition of corporation, instead we get the justice system coming up with a handwavy explanation that helps out their golfing buddies. The answer is to get rid of the common law justice system and codify laws in congress like a civil law system. That way you dont get rich people trying to buy favors or "tip" judges.

The treating of a corporation as a 'person' (which is a widely held misconception that doesn't really exist) rests in English common law, not any statute. Corporate personhood does not mean anything of what most people think it does. Corporations are obviously not people and are not treated as such.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#142

Post by OtherShrezzing »

The English Crown is another example. The King is a person who embodies The Crown, but The Crown itself is a discrete abstract legal entity, which is really a form of deity, but is afforded rights of a person (excluding death rights), and the legal status of a corporation. It’s also entirely above the law while being constrained by Parliament.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#143

Post by anon291 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #70
chemotaxis wrote: post #5

Wouldn't personal property in the US fall under the same criteria, in the sense that the government can sue the property itself (civil forfeiture)? But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. If they don't exist, Microsoft is no longer a distinct entity; it's 200,000 people who for some reason talk to each other, and you can't really audit their finances, punish them collectively,…

> This obviously has negative externalities, because while a corporation is easy to fine, it's hard to put in prison... but trying to approach it differently would be about as fun as modeling a CPU as a bunch of transistors. There's nothing stopping the legislature (other than their own self-interest) from passing a law that executives and board members are criminally liable for the malfeasance of their entity. We al…

The are already liable and have always been liable if it can be shown they had knowledge of it. The logic is already applied. Corporations are not people, but they are legal persons. For some reason, using language that sounds the same makes people confused and causes a large section of society to get irrationally angry.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#144

Post by anon291 »

Corporate personhood means nothing of what you think it means. People get irrationally angry because we use words that sound the same, even though in no case are corporations ever treated as human beings (duh...).

We might as well call it 'subjecthood'. Corporate personhood means a corporation can be the subject of a legal dispute or action. Trivially, corporations have basically no personal rights. All the 'cases', in which corporations have been 'found' to have human rights is because a corporation is made up of people who retain their natural rights no matter how they associate. Corporations are never treated as actual living beings. Are people actually this daft.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#145

Post by anon291 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #134
arrosenberg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What we have is a severe lack of enforcement of the laws we do have. We do have legal mechanisms to hold the individual people criminally liable for criminal offenses the corporation commits, the problem is we don't enforce it. Boeing just got off scott free for killing 338 people. DOJ told the judge to dismiss the case. We've also neglected to enforce our own anti-monopoly laws for far too long, and most recently wh…

I mean we live in a country where 'defund the police' and 'eliminate jails' are considered somewhat mainstream legal positions (In that there are many politicians elected to office throughout the country who have held these views). All of its stems from a lack of desire to enforce standards.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#146

Post by twelvechairs »

otterdude wrote: post #133
chemotaxis wrote: post #5

Wouldn't personal property in the US fall under the same criteria, in the sense that the government can sue the property itself (civil forfeiture)? But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. If they don't exist, Microsoft is no longer a distinct entity; it's 200,000 people who for some reason talk to each other, and you can't really audit their finances, punish them collectively,…

The answer if for congress to make a legal definition of corporation, instead we get the justice system coming up with a handwavy explanation that helps out their golfing buddies. The answer is to get rid of the common law justice system and codify laws in congress like a civil law system. That way you dont get rich people trying to buy favors or "tip" judges.

I dont think youd get less rich-people-friendly decisions from ccongress. It may well be the opposite. Certainly it removes some of the separation of powers.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#147

Post by PopAlongKid »

jojomodding wrote: post #78
arrosenberg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This obviously has negative externalities, because while a corporation is easy to fine, it's hard to put in prison... but trying to approach it differently would be about as fun as modeling a CPU as a bunch of transistors. There's nothing stopping the legislature (other than their own self-interest) from passing a law that executives and board members are criminally liable for the malfeasance of their entity. We al…

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,…

> a corporation can not (e.g.) commit murder or theft because that usually requires some physical action.

Not true. Consider investor-owned utility PG&E in northern California.

"While on probation [for previous felonies], PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 felony counts of involuntary manslaughter for a 2018 wildfire that wiped out the town of Paradise, about 170 miles (275 kilometers) northeast of San Francisco."

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/24/1075267222/californias-embatt...

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#148

Post by anon291 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #46
robot-wrangler wrote: post #7

Thought provoking. Most people who (quite reasonably) hate corporate personhood would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that personhood for a river can/should be normalized. The thing with temples stems ultimately from fairly practical matters if they hold such treasure, but it's a magnet for strife, and actually kind of surprising that in the case-study mentioned they resisted the opportunity to justify abuse of po…

I wouldn’t have so much problem with corporate personhood if we hadn’t decided money was speech. Plus, if corporations get to be people for all the good stuff, it should require taking the bad bits too. E.g. capital punishment should be on the table.

Why isn't money speech? Like I don't like that money influences politics, but ignoring corporations completely... can anyone explain why some person should not be able to spend their money to make their point? It all boils down to you being upset that you cannot use your means to make your point, rather than any fundamental ethical argument.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#149

Post by ar_lan »

chemotaxis wrote: post #5

Wouldn't personal property in the US fall under the same criteria, in the sense that the government can sue the property itself (civil forfeiture)? But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. If they don't exist, Microsoft is no longer a distinct entity; it's 200,000 people who for some reason talk to each other, and you can't really audit their finances, punish them collectively,…

> while a corporation is easy to fine, it's hard to put in prison...

It would be interesting if there were some tangible way to prevent the company from performing operations for some period of time.

I don't think this is viable or even necessarily a good idea, but the concept that "Meta illegally collected user data in this way" means they cannot operate for 5 years. It would probably involve large deconstruction of megacorps into "independent" entities so when one does something bad, it only affects a small portion of the overall business. Almost introducing a concept of "families" to the corporate world.

But the rabbit hole is odd. Should (share)holders be complicit too, as they are partial owners? I think not.

Corporate entities and laws governing them are definitely weird.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#150

Post by whatevertrevor »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #52
bitwize wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people who (quite reasonably) hate corporate personhood would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that personhood for a river can/should be normalized. Well, one protects nature, the other protects profits. They are not the same thing.

A river is nature (maybe), it doesn't protect nature. If a river is a person, and a river floods and destroys my home, can I sue the river?

But you see, the destruction of your house is (protecting) nature.

I'm being facetious, and agree with your point. But I'd go further to say protecting nature is too vague a goal so as to not qualify as a reasonable basis to make laws on top of.

That's not to say there's nothing in nature worth protecting. We should strive to make those things explicit (by having the ugly debates they'll undeniably ellicit), instead of having a game of vague moral grandstanding.

I for one think Pandas get too much care and attention. A species too lazy to reproduce doesn't deserve the resources we pour into them. :D

Post reply on HN