Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says • Hacker News Board

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#251

Post by bit-anarchist » Fri, May 29, 2026, 3:27 PM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #248

bit-anarchist wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of statements, so I'll dissect them. > People can exercise their rights as people. Or, they can create legal fictions with no rights. How exactly do you think they can create these legal fictions? Through their rights. That's how corporations inherit them. Keep in mind I'm not focusing on LLCs, but the more broader concept, that also includes an organized society under a common set of rules. > There's no…

I'm also focused on the broader principle, not just specifically any one structure such as LLCs. I have the legal right as a person to write on a piece of paper "i am a person". That piece of paper does not inherit any rights by my doing so. Me writing "Microsoft" on one paper and "Google" on another paper certainly means that those two pieces of paper are distinct. Neither one, however, has rights. What I meant by i…

Is the piece of paper a collective of people? Does the piece of paper have agents to enact the decisions of its rulling body? You seem to be forgetting the primary reason why corporations have rights in this perspective.

There's, objectively, an intermingling of rights happening inside an corporation, which derives directly from the "under a normative instrument" part of the definition of a corporation, which creates legal interactions between the rights of the members. That's simply a fact.

And, again, may I remind you, "rights", "laws", "norms", etc. are legal fiction. They don't have an actual corporeal body. Arguably, corporations have more of one given that they have agents, and the actions they do, on behalf of the corporation, is very material.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#252

Post by bit-anarchist » Fri, May 29, 2026, 3:33 PM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #250

wat10000 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be a natural death when it's destroyed by another person? Really this comes down to sloppy usage of words. You said the phrase yourself: "juridical people." You need that qualifier on it, "juridical," to distinguish from actual human beings. Because they're not the same. "Corporations are people" -> corporations are legal entities that share some of the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as hu…

Which is why elsewhere I make the argument that we should strongly reject the terminology of "people" in any relation to corporations. It leads people down bad mental thought processes by sneaking in priors. Corporations are not "X people". Corporations are not people, period. Natural people are just people.

I had the same logic as you previously, actually. But, eventually, I realized the terminology is not as misleading as it appears.

Try defining what is "people". What is "natural people". Why do "natural people" have "rights". What is a "corporation". How does a "corporation" differ from any other legal fiction. So on.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#253

Post by EnergyAmy » Fri, May 29, 2026, 6:17 PM UTC

bit-anarchist wrote: post #251

EnergyAmy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also focused on the broader principle, not just specifically any one structure such as LLCs. I have the legal right as a person to write on a piece of paper "i am a person". That piece of paper does not inherit any rights by my doing so. Me writing "Microsoft" on one paper and "Google" on another paper certainly means that those two pieces of paper are distinct. Neither one, however, has rights. What I meant by i…

Is the piece of paper a collective of people? Does the piece of paper have agents to enact the decisions of its rulling body? You seem to be forgetting the primary reason why corporations have rights in this perspective. There's, objectively, an intermingling of rights happening inside an corporation, which derives directly from the "under a normative instrument" part of the definition of a corporation, which creates…

You're trying to make sense of a broken worldview. Hopefully the absurdity is becoming clear.

No, it's just a piece of paper.

Yes, rights/laws/norms/etc are legal fiction. Harm is material. Without harm, there's not much purpose to a legal system. A bad legal system lets someone harm someone else, and then wave around a piece of paper saying "Oh, it was this piece of paper that did it, not me, I'm not responsible!"

A good legal system recognizes that that's absurd. We currently play along far too much, and Citizens United was a breaking point for many people.

Even in our broken legal system, we recognize this fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#254

Post by EnergyAmy » Fri, May 29, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

bit-anarchist wrote: post #252

EnergyAmy wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why elsewhere I make the argument that we should strongly reject the terminology of "people" in any relation to corporations. It leads people down bad mental thought processes by sneaking in priors. Corporations are not "X people". Corporations are not people, period. Natural people are just people.

I had the same logic as you previously, actually. But, eventually, I realized the terminology is not as misleading as it appears. Try defining what is "people". What is "natural people". Why do "natural people" have "rights". What is a "corporation". How does a "corporation" differ from any other legal fiction. So on.

People are humans. Natural people are people, and therefore humans. Humans have rights because we all want to live in a society where it's not OK to murder people without consequences.

Corporations are pieces of paper we've scribbled on. Because they are pieces of paper, they cannot be harmed.

This is the primary difference between corporations and people.

People can be harmed through the pieces of paper they've scribbled on. That is material. But do not mistake that for the paper being harmed. It can't be. It's just a piece of paper.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#255

Post by singleshot_ » Fri, May 29, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #216

singleshot_ wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea is equally wrong for different reasons, but I do have a measure of appreciation for you having abandoned your first intrinsically broken idea upon the first resistance you encountered. Fail fast! Why would thirty companies that owned a company together get one vote each instead of one thirtieth? The thirty companies would each have one vote in determining how to vote the one parent's vote. (You are, however…

Well the choice was either accept the likelihood of a common restriction that seems to exist in many places, or dig into the actual specifics of the law in this Delaware county. I don't need to give myself a headache for fun. Why would thirty companies each get a vote? Because that is what the charter says. There wouldn't be one parent company, rather the real estate would be owned by them all directly as tenants in…

I apologize for being dismissive. You have read this a little more closely than I have.

Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution gets multiplied by an arbitrary factor in your model.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#256

Post by wat10000 » Fri, May 29, 2026, 10:12 PM UTC

bit-anarchist wrote: post #249

wat10000 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be a natural death when it's destroyed by another person? Really this comes down to sloppy usage of words. You said the phrase yourself: "juridical people." You need that qualifier on it, "juridical," to distinguish from actual human beings. Because they're not the same. "Corporations are people" -> corporations are legal entities that share some of the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as hu…

Because the another personin question is one the constituents acting in behalf of the corporation itself. Perhaps it's closer to suicide, but still, it's not just "another person", but, in a sense, a part of the corporation itself. I think the dispute is more about interpretation. Ultimately, what I've shown is more of a perspective (one I believe it's useful due to the legal interplay of rights that happen inside),…

If you could just look at corporations by looking at their members then there would be no need for a legal fiction, because the law could also just look at the members.

But that's not at all what happens. "Meta, Inc." is not just a shorthand way of naming all the shareholders of Meta, Inc. It is a separate legal entity, owned by but not identical to the shareholders.

Why do people bother making corporations in the first place? It's precisely because they want a legal entity that is not themselves. Typically this is so that, for example, the corporation's liabilities are not legally the owner's liabilities. In other words, you form an LLC so that your customers can't sue and take your house.

Your approach is IMO far too philosophical. Corporations are a totally pragmatic construct. They exist because they provide a structure that we as a society consider to be useful in order to promote commerce, innovation, and all that stuff. Nothing about that structure is set up that way because it logically follows from the rights and duties of the owners. It's set up that way because it's supposed to facilitate commerce.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#257

Post by bit-anarchist » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #253

bit-anarchist wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the piece of paper a collective of people? Does the piece of paper have agents to enact the decisions of its rulling body? You seem to be forgetting the primary reason why corporations have rights in this perspective. There's, objectively, an intermingling of rights happening inside an corporation, which derives directly from the "under a normative instrument" part of the definition of a corporation, which creates…

You're trying to make sense of a broken worldview. Hopefully the absurdity is becoming clear. No, it's just a piece of paper. Yes, rights/laws/norms/etc are legal fiction. Harm is material. Without harm, there's not much purpose to a legal system. A bad legal system lets someone harm someone else, and then wave around a piece of paper saying "Oh, it was this piece of paper that did it, not me, I'm not responsible!" A…

There are conflicts that always produce harm to one of the sides, regardless of legal system (these emerge from mutually exclusive situations). Thus, by your statements, there are only broken legal systems.

Also, mentioning in the "Citizens United v. FEC" case along with "Piercing the corporate veil" concept is a bit funny, because if you pierce the corporate veil of Citizens United in that court case, and look at it as "the shareholders behind Citizens United v. FEC", you will actually strengthen the majority opinion of the Court.

Honestly, I don't think it's me who has a broken world view, but you. I keep two perspectives in regards to corporations: an individualistic one (which backs the "pierce the corporate veil") and a organic one, inspired by system theory and emergent properties, and I try to not mix them without appropriate care. On the other hand, you seem to hold grievances that are only related, but not directly connected, to corporate personhood. In particular, no offense, your perspective about the law seems rather reductive.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#258

Post by bit-anarchist » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:28 AM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #254

bit-anarchist wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same logic as you previously, actually. But, eventually, I realized the terminology is not as misleading as it appears. Try defining what is "people". What is "natural people". Why do "natural people" have "rights". What is a "corporation". How does a "corporation" differ from any other legal fiction. So on.

People are humans. Natural people are people, and therefore humans. Humans have rights because we all want to live in a society where it's not OK to murder people without consequences. Corporations are pieces of paper we've scribbled on. Because they are pieces of paper, they cannot be harmed. This is the primary difference between corporations and people. People can be harmed through the pieces of paper they've scri…

1. Why only humans are people? Why not other species, even if they were as sentient as us?

2. What is murder? Why is killing justified in certain cases (e.g. self defense, death penalties, abortions, etc.) and not in others?

3. What is the piece of paper of a corporation? What makes it different any other piece of paper? I don't think USA's agents are harming people through pieces of papers.

4. What is harm? Consider when someone puts fire into one of Meta's unoccupied buildings who gets harmed.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#259

Post by bit-anarchist » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:46 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #256

bit-anarchist wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the another personin question is one the constituents acting in behalf of the corporation itself. Perhaps it's closer to suicide, but still, it's not just "another person", but, in a sense, a part of the corporation itself. I think the dispute is more about interpretation. Ultimately, what I've shown is more of a perspective (one I believe it's useful due to the legal interplay of rights that happen inside),…

If you could just look at corporations by looking at their members then there would be no need for a legal fiction, because the law could also just look at the members. But that's not at all what happens. "Meta, Inc." is not just a shorthand way of naming all the shareholders of Meta, Inc. It is a separate legal entity, owned by but not identical to the shareholders. Why do people bother making corporations in the fi…

I agree that corporations aren't just shorthands for their shareholders. That's why I think the qualifiers "towards a unified goal" and "under a binding normative instrument" are important. Specially the latter one.

LLCs, in particular, are just one type of corporation and tend to have a well defined set of laws and agreements backing them, with the primary purpose of limiting liabilities towards the owners. Personally, I'm favor of revising the way these liabilities are limited as to internalize externalities.

That being said, the corporation's liabilities not being, necessarily, the constituents' isn't inspired solely on LLC law, but also organic theory.

But, yeah, my approach is pretty philosophical because it is a "philosophy-first, pragmatism-second" one.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#260

Post by mindslight » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:13 AM UTC

singleshot_ wrote: post #255

mindslight wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the choice was either accept the likelihood of a common restriction that seems to exist in many places, or dig into the actual specifics of the law in this Delaware county. I don't need to give myself a headache for fun. Why would thirty companies each get a vote? Because that is what the charter says. There wouldn't be one parent company, rather the real estate would be owned by them all directly as tenants in…

I apologize for being dismissive. You have read this a little more closely than I have. Do you think Section 9A(3), which more or less says these rules would be construed under one person/entity, one vote would break your plan? I believe if you tried to have thirty voters tied to one parcel of land by joint tenancy, that would be how the court stops you. The plaintiff here is arguing vote dilution, but vote dilution…

IANAA. My reading is that "one person/entity one vote" is an extension of the common "one person one vote" where say owning two pieces of real estate or other qualification for an election means you still just get one vote (rather than multiple by having more stake in the outcome). Read the examples around those sections.

There might be an angle where if a given person has the voting POA from two different entities, that person would still only get a single vote, limited by being a natural person? This doesn't seem to be the intent though.

To be [close to] sure you'd have to ask a Delaware attorney, as they should have a good handle on the jurisprudence around this topic.