Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected things that are people

bengoldhaber.substack.com

291–300 of 312 posts

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#291
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't a corporation incorporated or something like that? With limited liability and everything? Or does it also cover tiny 1 person outfits? I admit English isn't my first language, but I've always understood it to a be a specific form of company.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#292
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't a corporation incorporated or something like that? With limited liability and everything? Or does it also cover tiny 1 person outfits? I admit English isn't my first language, but I've always understood it to a be a specific form of company.

I looked into Maatschaps and understand where you are coming from now.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't money speech? Like I don't like that money influences politics, but ignoring corporations completely... can anyone explain why some person should not be able to spend their money to make their point? It all boils down to you being upset that you cannot use your means to make your point, rather than any fundamental ethical argument.

Because it means that someone with more money has a Constitutional right to be louder than those with less money.

Nonsense. The constitution holds that both individuals have an equal right to acquire the same money. People value different things. The constitution does not demand that people have an equal platform. This is like a preacher complaining that his freedom of religion isn't being respected because his congregation isn't large enough. Grow up

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#294
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can a dead person be held criminally liable? I wouldn’t think the case would proceed.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#295
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire cry of "corporations aren't people!" is based and a complete misunderstanding of what a legal person is. > if it weren't for activists who thought it sounded scandalous It wasn’t activists who first misunderstood the concept, it was the Supreme Court, who decided that corporate personhood gives corporations the same first amendment rights as real personhood. It’s not ridiculous to point out that if freed…

The Supreme Court was going to decide whatever they wanted, regardless of which linguistic terms were used to describe the underlying legal concepts which remain the same. If you look at the text of the first amendment, the word "person" doesn't appear in that part. It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say that the speech has to come from "persons". So I'd say you're the…

> If you look at the text of the first amendment, the word "person" doesn't appear in that part.

This is irrelevant, but anyway it has the word “people” in it. Either way the bill of rights is a list of personal rights.

> The Supreme Court was going to decide whatever they wanted, regardless

The Supreme Court is also supposed to justify their position. It makes sense to protest their justification. That’s how the courts work.

Not a single activist would continue to protest if the ruling was overturned. Absolutely no one actually cares about what legal terminology is used beyond lawyers. It’s an effective slogan because it gets to the heart of why the ruling was so ridiculous. To change the slogan “corporations aren’t people” would either reduce accuracy or reduce understandability. It is the correct slogan, no matter whether the legal terminology continues to be useful

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely it's not rivers fault a bunch of rain water makes it bloated. river and you should sue the clouds:)

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#297
post #286

> 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.

The law apparently states it has the same legal liabilities as a person though, so it should be manslaughter at least?

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But right now America is factually less free than either Europe or my own country. You simply do not have due process anymore. Most of the protections of your constitution have been interpreted away to nothingness. I just don't see how these so called valuable principles have actually materially served your people in being able to protect or defend the values you claim to hold. Faith is fine, but you do need to evalu…

That’s just propaganda. If we didn’t have due process, Donald Trump would be in jail. Or, if you think he’s the reason we lost it, half the Biden administration would. The idea that the legal system has somehow melted down in the last nine months is just scaremongering. Norms are being violated, for sure, and the courts are being pushed to determine the bounds of the law. I won’t say I’m a fan of most of it, but it’s…

> That’s just propaganda. If we didn’t have due process, Donald Trump would be in jail.

Well your country does still offer its protections for the wealthy and powerful. It's just regular people have less of it than we do in freer countries.

> Or, if you think he’s the reason we lost it, half the Biden administration would. The idea that the legal system has somehow melted down in the last nine months is just scaremongering.

I see this as coping, to be honest. Americans simply have been told that they are the vanguard of freedom for so long that they cannot imagine a world where their freedom is somehow lesser than others.

But as someone who grew up in America and emigrated out, I can tell you for a fact that Americans are less free than Canadians.

On average, the Canadian government gives itself less of a leeway to abuse people.

If you insult a police officer in America, that officer can abuse you and take away your rights and the probability of consequences for that officer is far lower than the probability in my country.

My country doesn't have a constitution that protects me from unreasonable searches and seizures, but yet, Americans have less protections from unreasonable search and seizure despite their constitution - due the loophole of civil forfeiture.

In your country, your government can pass a law to criminalize you, and then that makes it legal for the government to turn you into a slave. That's not allowed in my country.

Speedy trials in your country are only reserved for the rich.

Americans simply have less freedom than the rest of the first world. It's extremely hard for them to accept because of the propaganda they've been subject to.

But as someone who grew up all over America, and has seen and lived and experienced more of it than most Americans, I know for a fact that they are wrong.

If you don't have the money to pay for freedoms in America, you have far fewer than someone from my country does.

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can a dead person be held criminally liable? I wouldn’t think the case would proceed.

It's happened at least once, though in papal court not criminal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

Though I would be surprised if not once in human history in some kangaroo court a dead person was put on trial for a crime.

edit: Here's one though it resulted in a mistrial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Plummer

Re: Unexpected things that are people

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely insane take.

Can you be more specific? What would it mean for the New York Times (the corporation) not to be protected by the first amendment? The government can sue the New York Times Company for what it prints as long as the government doesn’t prosecute the humans who work there? The existence of corporate personhood has been settled law in the United States for over a hundred years, and all nine current Supreme Court justices…

Corporate personhood isn't required for the first amendment to apply to the nytimes.
Post reply on HN