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

The Corporation

hulu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: The Corporation

#21

Post by [deleted] »

kiba wrote: post #14
kiba wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a supporter of capitalism, I was taken in by the socialist propaganda . My interpretation is rather different. I thought the corporations are creature of politics and political institutions, rather than a product of free markets. The state make a bunch of laws that influence the size and nature of corporations, determine what they cannot do and often what they can do, and so on. The state would then give favors an…

Wait, why am I being downvoted? I was only offering my interpretation of the film means.

[deleted]

Re: The Corporation

#22

Post by firebones »

j_baker wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. No they aren't. In coding terms, this is a LegalPerson: interface LegalPerson { public void signContract(Contract c); public void enforceContract(Contract c); public void sue(Lawsuit s); // Plus a few more } class Human implements LegalPerson, HumanRightsHolder, etc { ... } class Corporation implements LegalPerson, Property { ... }…

Corporations have a lot of the same rights as people though. That was one of the big deals about the supreme court striking down campaign finance reform: the idea that corporations have the freedom of speech to influence elections. The case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

To co-opt the analogy, a more illustrative programming language might be Ruby rather than Java, to reflect the ability of the courts and Congress to monkeypatch the original implementation.

Re: The Corporation

#23

Post by joelmichael »

kiba wrote: post #12
joelmichael wrote: post #6

An old, overlong bit of socialist propaganda that has little place on a site dedicated to entrepreneurialism.

As a supporter of capitalism, I was taken in by the socialist propaganda . My interpretation is rather different. I thought the corporations are creature of politics and political institutions, rather than a product of free markets. The state make a bunch of laws that influence the size and nature of corporations, determine what they cannot do and often what they can do, and so on. The state would then give favors an…

This tacky, sensationalist film, reminiscent of YouTube conspiracy videos, encourages public ownership as the solution. People on this site should be starting corporations, not demonizing them with rhetoric more appropriate for a college dorm room. We have Reddit for that.

Re: The Corporation

#24

Post by yummyfajitas »

j_baker wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. No they aren't. In coding terms, this is a LegalPerson: interface LegalPerson { public void signContract(Contract c); public void enforceContract(Contract c); public void sue(Lawsuit s); // Plus a few more } class Human implements LegalPerson, HumanRightsHolder, etc { ... } class Corporation implements LegalPerson, Property { ... }…

Corporations have a lot of the same rights as people though. That was one of the big deals about the supreme court striking down campaign finance reform: the idea that corporations have the freedom of speech to influence elections. The case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

Citizens United was not about corporate personhood at all, it was about freedom of speech.

From the decision: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Corporate personhood is irrelevant as far as Citizens United vs FEC goes, except in minor points (Citizens United, rather than a list of members of Citizens United, was one party in court).

The only "rights" corporations have is the same rights that property of their members has. If you pass a law saying my computer can't criticize the government, you've violated my freedom of speech. The court ruled that you similarly can't pass a law saying my corporation can't criticize the government - that would violate my rights, not my corporations rights.

Re: The Corporation

#25

Post by yummyfajitas »

meatsock wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. No they aren't. In coding terms, this is a LegalPerson: interface LegalPerson { public void signContract(Contract c); public void enforceContract(Contract c); public void sue(Lawsuit s); // Plus a few more } class Human implements LegalPerson, HumanRightsHolder, etc { ... } class Corporation implements LegalPerson, Property { ... }…

well that's a clever way of framing the issue in code, but i think the point of the movie is that your comment '//plus a few more' is a grey area wide enough to drive a feature film through. law deals mostly with edge cases (in that the easily decided issues aren't interesting in terms of new law) your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for y…

A LegalPerson implements the methods signContract, enforceContract, sue, beSued, ownProperty, transferProperty, and I think that's about it. That's what was hiding in my "plus a few more".

LegalPerson does not need to implement getPersonalityType.

If you have a problem with the Bolivian government passing a law making it illegal for anyone besides Bechtel to sell water, take that up with the Bolivian government. That has nothing to do with corporate personhood. They could easily have granted monopoly rights to a flesh and blood person - would that have changed things?

I'm not trying to address the "oh noes, big scary corporations, lets pretend they have a mean personality" part of the movie. I'm just pointing out that corporate personhood doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re: The Corporation

#26

Post by meatsock »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #25
meatsock wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well that's a clever way of framing the issue in code, but i think the point of the movie is that your comment '//plus a few more' is a grey area wide enough to drive a feature film through. law deals mostly with edge cases (in that the easily decided issues aren't interesting in terms of new law) your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for y…

A LegalPerson implements the methods signContract, enforceContract, sue, beSued, ownProperty, transferProperty, and I think that's about it. That's what was hiding in my "plus a few more". LegalPerson does not need to implement getPersonalityType. If you have a problem with the Bolivian government passing a law making it illegal for anyone besides Bechtel to sell water, take that up with the Bolivian government. That…

right so in your model you're not addressing the moral impact of strategy decisions, because it doesn't make sense for an org, but the reason it's not addressed in discourse related to people is that it's inferred. any entity that's described in any terms has a responsibility to not be against people.

Re: The Corporation

#27

Post by _b8r0 »

hugh3 wrote: post #15

Y'know, I don't think film is a good medium for making a political argument. I do think it's a powerful medium for making a political argument, since you can capture a viewer's whole attention for two hours, tug at their heartstrings with music and pictures of crying children, overwhelm your audience's critical faculties and gloss over the main flaws in your argument without anyone noticing. And that's exactly the re…

If you want to see the arguments in black text on white paper, you could do worse than buy the book, The Corporation - by Joel Bakan.

It's a great read. I thought the film was very good.

Re: The Corporation

#28

Post by _b8r0 »

MJR wrote: post #3

Regardless of the content of the movie, what's the deal with linking to a Hulu page which offers little more than a player for this 2 hour and 24 minute movie? The entire "description" on this page is a single sentence and there's no supporting information on who made this film or why it's being linked to on HN. Can the OP or anyone who's seen the film share their opinion of it?

Having seen the film and read the book I can say it's definitely worth a watch.

It's a documentary that asks, "If a corporation were a person, what type of person would it be?"

It then follows through on the history of corporate personhood, has interviews with capitalists and anticapitalists and concludes that if a corporation were a person it would be a psychopath, concerned only with the acquisition of power and money.

It's a good film, it's worth a watch especially if you're not familiar with the concepts of corporate personhood.

Re: The Corporation

#30

Post by yummyfajitas »

meatsock wrote: post #26
yummyfajitas wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A LegalPerson implements the methods signContract, enforceContract, sue, beSued, ownProperty, transferProperty, and I think that's about it. That's what was hiding in my "plus a few more". LegalPerson does not need to implement getPersonalityType. If you have a problem with the Bolivian government passing a law making it illegal for anyone besides Bechtel to sell water, take that up with the Bolivian government. That…

right so in your model you're not addressing the moral impact of strategy decisions, because it doesn't make sense for an org, but the reason it's not addressed in discourse related to people is that it's inferred. any entity that's described in any terms has a responsibility to not be against people.

Legal personhood is about creating a single entity for counterparties to sue and a single entity which owns corporate property.

I'm not attempting to engage in the completely orthogonal issues which you are raising. But let me point out one specific place where you are wrong:

your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for your tap water...

This is utterly false. If you wish to file a lawsuit in any of these cases, you will sue one of two legal persons: Bechtel or the Bolivian government. You just go to court and name them in your suit. Figuring out the internal organization of Bechtel Bolivia, Inc. is not your problem - it's up to someone on the other side of that interface to figure out, e.g., how to pay damages if they lose.

(I'm assuming the Bolivian Govt. is a legal person, I'm not sure of this. If not, your lawsuit will be considerably trickier.)

Post reply on HN