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

221–230 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#221

Post by NuclearPM »

mrandish wrote: post #199
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... IANAL, but I believe in at least some scenarios, officer(s) of U.S. corporations can go to jail if they are responsible for the directing the corporation to commit certain offending actions (despite not physically doing it themselves). To be clear, I'm not just talking about personal liability for fraud, insider trading, etc they may have committed…

[flagged]

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#223

Post by c0brac0bra »

If the Te Awa Tupua is a legal person, and it floods its banks and destroys my home, can I sue it and be made whole?

It seems like they've afforded a river all the rights and privileges of a person with none of the responsibilities, duties, or obligations.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#224

Post by petesergeant »

c0brac0bra wrote: post #223

If the Te Awa Tupua is a legal person, and it floods its banks and destroys my home, can I sue it and be made whole? It seems like they've afforded a river all the rights and privileges of a person with none of the responsibilities, duties, or obligations.

That’s the magic of parliamentary sovereignty right there

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#226

Post by jabbywocker »

thfuran wrote: post #207
foolswisdom wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that the need for abstraction doesn't mean we must reuse an existing concept. We should be able to talk about corporations as entities and talk about what laws or rights should apply, without needing to call them people.

But the existing concept by and large has the properties we want. The ability to form contracts, to be held civilly or criminally liable for misconduct, to own property, etc. That we say something is a juridical person isn't some kind of moral claim that it's equivalent in importance to a human, it's just a legal classification.

At least for me, the problem is that making them completely equivalent in a legal sense has undesirable outcomes, like Citizens United. Having distinct terms allows for creating distinct, but potential overlapping sets of laws/privileges/rights. Using the same term makes it much harder to argue for distinctions in key areas

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#227

Post by lmm »

ZitchDog wrote: post #208
nzeid wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think the boring answer here is that we sometimes need legal abstractions. Absolutely - the legal abstraction is that corporations are corporations, not people. The article went with a lighter hearted quip but here's my own tired old one: If corporations are people, then owning shares is unconstitutional as that would be a form of slavery.

Not correct: A share is a contract issued by the corporation entitling its owner to a share of future profits. So you're not buying a corporation, just engaging in a contract with it. I hate Citizens United as much as the next guy, but this isn't a good argument against it.

> A share is a contract issued by the corporation entitling its owner to a share of future profits. So you're not buying a corporation, just engaging in a contract with it.

A contract of indentured servitude (if you consider it a person), which we consider a form of slavery and therefore illegal.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#228

Post by thfuran »

jabbywocker wrote: post #226
thfuran wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the existing concept by and large has the properties we want. The ability to form contracts, to be held civilly or criminally liable for misconduct, to own property, etc. That we say something is a juridical person isn't some kind of moral claim that it's equivalent in importance to a human, it's just a legal classification.

At least for me, the problem is that making them completely equivalent in a legal sense has undesirable outcomes, like Citizens United. Having distinct terms allows for creating distinct, but potential overlapping sets of laws/privileges/rights. Using the same term makes it much harder to argue for distinctions in key areas

But they aren't completely equivalent. Natural persons can vote; juridical persons cannot. Natural persons have a constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination; juridical persons do not; etc. There's just a lot in common between the two, because it makes sense for there to be a lot in common. Citizen's United v FEC was a transparently terrible ruling, but it was in no way implied by the mere existence of corporate personhood. It was a significant expansion of the interpretation of corporate personhood that directly overturned a prior supreme court ruling on campaign finance regulation.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#229

Post by throwaway290 »

c0brac0bra wrote: post #223

If the Te Awa Tupua is a legal person, and it floods its banks and destroys my home, can I sue it and be made whole? It seems like they've afforded a river all the rights and privileges of a person with none of the responsibilities, duties, or obligations.

They included liabilities. they even recommending the river to register as charitable entity for tax purposes.
Post reply on HN