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

241–250 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#241

Post by jabbywocker »

thfuran wrote: post #239
jabbywocker wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a major expansion, based solely on the reuse of the term. It’s why I used it as an example. The main arguments boils down to that since corporations are people and have free speech, and that a natural persons financial activity is considered protected speech, that a corporate person should have the same freedom as there should be no distinctions about the rights afforded to a person. The entire argument would…

There were then and still are now constitutional rights afforded to natural persons but not juridical persons. There is not some inability to distinguish the two. Look at the ruling that Citizens United overturned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_... . It was very clear that it's fine (and necessary) to restrict corporations in some ways precisely because they are not people. Perhaps the a…

Thats exactly my point, you do not have to use the exact same term for both types. You could literally just use “person” and “corporation” as wholly distinct terms with overlapping rights afforded to each and avoid the edge case semantic arguments that create legal situations that the majority takes issue with.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#242

Post by CobrastanJorji »

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…

It does make sense, but from a tech perspective, this smells like a bad hack. "Ooo, writing all new rules with this in mind is a crazy amount of work, but if we just say that a ship implements the Person interface, look, the laws mostly work out!"

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#243

Post by rendaw »

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.

It also has a lot of properties we don't want, no? Freedom of travel, enlist in the army, drink alcohol after a certain age, get married, etc etc.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#244

Post by tekla »

f0a0464cc8012 wrote: post #234
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.

But then why does a corporation need freedom of speech etc?

If a group of workers create a Union, should the Union be allowed free speech?

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#245

Post by hekkle »

throwaway290 wrote: post #230
hekkle wrote: post #222

If someone drowns in Te Awa Tupua, does the river get charged with Murder, or Manslaughter?

If you strangle yourself with my arm, did I murder you?

My comment was clearly a joke; however yes, in the jurisdiction I am living in, you would be assisting in euthanasia, which would render you liable for murder.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#246

Post by jmye »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #220
jmye wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what you think "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of [...] the press" means, in this case. Did you just not know what the actual text is, or ... ?

The New York Times (the corporation, as a legal person) has the right to freedom of the press, not just individual humans who work there. This is good, because it means the entire institution is protected. Not only is the government forbidden from arresting the humans for operating the printing press, it’s also forbidden from sanctioning the corporation for hiring humans to operate the press. In other words, freedom…

I think you’re generally correct about the function (“the press” is both Joe/Jill Journalist and the NYT), but I think you’re giving GP’s comment a much better reading than I can.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#247

Post by gsf_emergency_4 »

MengerSponge wrote: post #117
inglor_cz wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of the world, "a shipment of dildos" cannot be a participant of a trial, this is a US curiosity.

I believe that in most parts of the world you will regularly find shipments of dildos participating in trials.

Totally OT but I just saw your force diagram question.

The force diagrams I came up with have "invaginated arrows".

In the std diagram students get confused about what forces act on which objects so the invaginated arrows trip them up just enough to make them figure out the right orientation on their own ..

If you press me, I'd say these are nothing more than UX trials..

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#248

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

Not a bad analogy as a river is fed by its watershed (shareholders, inhabitants, landowners, state reserves, etc.) and delivers water downstream (customers, clients, dependents, etc.) as well as having its own inherent structure and function, water quality, biodiversity support (eg providing steady employ to 100K people in a local region, the daily structural business of capital and material flows, etc.).

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#250

Post by monocularvision »

jmye wrote: post #187
monocularvision wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if corporations aren’t people, then the New York Times has no right to the First Amendment.

I'm curious what you think "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of [...] the press" means, in this case. Did you just not know what the actual text is, or ... ?

You see the reading “the press” as meaning some organization of people. You take it for granted that the freedom of the press applies to a business entity like the NYT and also to an individual blogger or any other person creating a publication.

The idea that people can come together to form cooperative groups and can use those to exercise rights through the idea of personhood is such a normal and legally settled idea.

Post reply on HN