Motorist Claims Corporation Papers Are Carpool Passengers • Hacker News Board

Re: Motorist Claims Corporation Papers Are Carpool Passengers

#21

Post by anigbrowl » Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 8:37 PM UTC

thwest wrote: post #18

anigbrowl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a kind of arbitrary approach. Individuals have unlimited freedom of speech, why shouldn't groups of individuals exercise that same right? I'm rather less rah-rah on the first amendment than most, and would far rather have publicly financed elections, but I can't really see a philosophical problem with Citizens United . Unions (which are specialized corporations) would not take kindly to restriction of their fr…

I want democracy to be about human to human negotiation. I don't want the basic unit of our society to be as abstract as one that would include corporations and unions (and computer programs? and other, smaller governments?). Corporations and unions exist to further human endeavors. To the extent that they aid individual humans, those humans will voice their support for higher-order structures. The higher-order struc…

Unfortunately, other people want different things. Human to human negotiation gets tricky in larger populations; it's no accident that the American political landscape rapidly became dominated by parties despite the founders' ideals; if a group of people choose to delegate some of their moral authority to an entity like a party or a corporation, it's rather hard to articulate why they should not be able to do so. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Re: Motorist Claims Corporation Papers Are Carpool Passengers

#22

Post by qbrass » Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 8:37 PM UTC

jwoah12 wrote: post #13

anywherenotes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my limited understanding of law (based on what I found when I was looking to incorporate): There is a 'natural person' and 'legal person'. A natural person is also a legal person, but a legal person doesn't have to be a natural person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_person Legal person doesn't have all the same rights, for example I don't think corporation can marry, and thus have a right to not testify ag…

Hard to believe that in this day and age, a corporation still doesn't have the right to marry.

While a merger isn't exactly the same as marriage, it lets corporations practice polygamy.

Re: Motorist Claims Corporation Papers Are Carpool Passengers

#23

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 9:03 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #15

dlss wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you want to sue one, who will you sue? Okay, since I'm sensing this is about to become a type theory conversation, let's start with the function definition: sue :: Person -> Claim -> Person -> Maybe Money Now you're basically saying that, given the above definition, we have no choice but to have Company implement the Person typeclass. Unfortunately, there is a lot of code already using the Person typeclass for…

have Company implement the Person typeclass The obvious solution is to factor out a base class, LegalPerson, with some but not all of the behaviors of the existing Person class. Then derive a separate Company class from LegalPerson. All the stuff we don't want corporations to have, we leave in the existing Person class, so Company doesn't have it. create a new Suable typeclass I would view "Suable" as an interface im…

[deleted]

Re: Motorist Claims Corporation Papers Are Carpool Passengers

#24

Post by pdonis » Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 2:13 AM UTC

dlss wrote: post #20

pdonis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have Company implement the Person typeclass The obvious solution is to factor out a base class, LegalPerson, with some but not all of the behaviors of the existing Person class. Then derive a separate Company class from LegalPerson. All the stuff we don't want corporations to have, we leave in the existing Person class, so Company doesn't have it. create a new Suable typeclass I would view "Suable" as an interface im…

Ignoring the fact that Person is clearly a subclass of Mammal, I like this. A couple comments: - the name LegalEntity feels better to me. (I think it's less likely to be confusing to the lawgrammers who'll be maintaing the code). - Once we have LegalEntity in place, we should consider discarding the Suable typeclass -- it looks to me like LegalEntity perfectly describes what we're looking for. There's still a lot of…

Person is clearly a subclass of Mammal

Well, of course we'll need to use multiple inheritance. :-)

we should consider discarding the Suable typeclass

I would recommend keeping it as an interface definition, to make clear that it is a logically distinct thing; LegalEntity would just implement the interface.

Will the constitution refer to Person, or to LegalEntity?

Depends on the context, I would think. Sounds like we'll need plenty of coders to make this work... :-)

Why can't all LegalEntities be acted upon in the same way?

Obviously we haven't defined all the relevant interfaces and subclasses :-). The one you're looking for here is Jailable, which evidently would be implemented by Person but not Company, and so would not be implemented in the LegalEntity base class.

Obvious next question: what language do we start the implementation in? I vote for Python. Anyone for starting a github project?