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

281–290 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#281

Post by cess11 »

nzeid wrote: post #157
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,…

> 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.

Corporations commonly are persons, legally. Fictive persons, but still treated as persons. It's as if you could get a bank account for Tolkien's Gandalf.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#282

Post by ghtbircshotbe »

shawndrost wrote: post #195
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.

I don't understand this POV, can you explain what I'm missing? Usually when people say "corporations aren't people" I think they are confused about the need for an abstraction. But you acknowledged the need for an abstraction. I don't imagine you are confused about the status quo of the legal terminology? AFAIK, the current facts are: the legal term "person" encompasses "natural person" (ie the common meaning of "per…

Or you could just take the obvious and literally meaning of the phrase "corporations are not people" and not say that everyone who says it is confused. Corporations have different incentives, legal requirements, rights and responsibilities.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#283

Post by Attrecomet »

mcv wrote: post #276
hrimfaxi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a corporation is a group of people, and a group of people don't lose their freedom of speech just because they joined a collective. And corporations can stand for things. They can have missions and use funds to effect speech in support of causes that align with their beliefs.

Is a corporation really a group of people? Of course people are involved with the corporation, but the corporation doesn't represent its employees, shareholders, management or customers. It's a separate legal entity with complex relationships with its employees, management, shareholders and customers, but with its own rights and responsibilities. There are organisation forms that are a lot closer to being just a grou…

>the Dutch Maatschap is probably as close as you can get to a company that's just a group of people.

So the Dutch just go ahead and call a group of people a "mash up"!

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#284

Post by c0brac0bra »

throwaway290 wrote: post #229
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.

The liabilities they listed were in terms of land ownership and allotments. I did not see anything related to acts of God or natural disasters.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#286

Post by wink »

voidUpdate wrote: post #285

> Te Awa Tupua is a legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person. If someone drowns in the river, can the river be convicted of murder?

I think it's more like "you drive into my house wall and die, not my fault". The river has been there all along, is not deemed a public hazard to be dismantled and you are supposed to be pay attention.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#287

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mcv wrote: post #273
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about the dichotomy. If the NY Times has First Amendment rights then Pfizer does. That annoys people because Pfizer is going to advocate for things some people might not like. But that's the cost of a rule that makes it so the NY Times can advocate for things other people might not like.

It's still possible to grant press organisations rights that other corporations don't get without having to make both of them people.

Journalism is an act, not an organization. There is no government license to do journalism nor should there be.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#288

Post by anon291 »

otterdude wrote: post #170
anon291 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The treating of a corporation as a 'person' (which is a widely held misconception that doesn't really exist) rests in English common law, not any statute. Corporate personhood does not mean anything of what most people think it does. Corporations are obviously not people and are not treated as such.

My point is the benefit greatly from the distinction, never codified in law. They have more rights and fewer responsibilities than actual people! They way it "should" be is that congress creates a legal framework for coporations, then justices enforce that. Instead we are living with a nearly two centuries old common law that makes peoples lives worse. My argument that if corporations are people, then they cannot be…

Corporations have no rights apart from the people that comprise them. I have no idea why people believe this.

Even the corporate money in campaign thing is literally because people who own corporations have rights to donate, not the corporation itself. As long as corporations are run by humans, the humans who control their assets are free to do as is.

Again, no one understands corporate personhood yet we all need to be angered by it. Because, 'John should not be able to do what he wants with his money' makes people seem like extremists.

If you actually think common law treats corporations as indistinguishable from people ,I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#289

Post by hrimfaxi »

mcv wrote: post #276
hrimfaxi wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a corporation is a group of people, and a group of people don't lose their freedom of speech just because they joined a collective. And corporations can stand for things. They can have missions and use funds to effect speech in support of causes that align with their beliefs.

Is a corporation really a group of people? Of course people are involved with the corporation, but the corporation doesn't represent its employees, shareholders, management or customers. It's a separate legal entity with complex relationships with its employees, management, shareholders and customers, but with its own rights and responsibilities. There are organisation forms that are a lot closer to being just a grou…

Co-ops and firms sound like they are a subset of corporation. If they aren't, what makes them different in your mind? Corporations can take many forms and organize around many different principles.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#290

Post by hrimfaxi »

acka wrote: post #257
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.

Corporations can be held criminally liable, but they can't go to prison. And while lots of countries have gotten rid of the death penalty, a corporation can actually be "executed" by getting dissolved. I think these are some pretty big deals.

Are those things unique to corporations though? A dead person can be held criminally liable but can't go to prison.
Post reply on HN