Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

frank_prajna t1_j5q0vkn wrote

Reply to comment by corporatestateinc in On Whether “Personhood” is a Normative or Descriptive Concept by ADefiniteDescription

I understand that they have been declared as such...

Corporations and Government should both serve persons, making them people is stupid.

By making a corporation the same as a person you're essentially saying they have the right to exist, that we must buy their shit or they'll die... but that's how capitalism works.

If your product isn't useful you don't get a business.

10

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qbxbn wrote

Personhood is a legal construct. Its other things too, but the legal construct of personhood is where the rubber hits the road for enforcing rights, duties, privileges, etc.

14

Hippopotamidaes t1_j5qkzbo wrote

Ontically personhood has been and is used as a legal construct.

We can also consider personhood in a metaphysical sense.

9

frank_prajna t1_j5qet7j wrote

I'm saying, a company shouldn't have rights or benefits, it should have obligations only.

2

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qjryo wrote

Corporations shouldn't have the same rights as natural persons, but some rights are essential for practical reasons...

Off the top of my head: due process, excessive fines, right to form contracts, right to sue and be sued, right to own property, and right to counsel come to mind. First amendment is tricky, but hopefully we agree that the government shouldn't be able to censor newspapers, publishers or book stores.

Without these rights, corporate entities (including schools and non-profits) would cease to exist, but I think we agree that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as human beings.

9

frank_prajna t1_j5qoy00 wrote

A corporation is never responsible for anything, those actually responsible should be punished and have these protections...

−3

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qqfr8 wrote

Easier said than done. Who pays for the medical care of people injured by a defective product? The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman? Maybe all of them? Maybe someone else? If it's one or more individual, there probably won't be enough money to give all the victims the medical care they need and deserve.

The (main) point of a corporation is to consolidate the risks in one entity, the one who paid those people's salaries and directly profited from the product. In some situations the individuals can be personally responsible too, but that's generally very difficult to establish under the law.

8

CoderDispose t1_j5qubqw wrote

> The inventor, the manufacturer, or the salesman?

Even more importantly, let's say it's the manufacturer. The problem occurred because a software test fail was not noticed. Who's fault is it then? The developer who wrote the bug? What about the people who did the code review? Maybe the tester who didn't bring it up after the fact? etc. etc. etc.

4

frank_prajna t1_j5qy1qq wrote

Whoever made the decision to sell the product before it was ready.

No one in the line making the product is responsible, no one inventing or selling is responsible... we don't have a system where they're the ones bringing it to market.

CEO's get the big bucks, why do they get protections for not doing their job?

−4

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5r00q2 wrote

Our system is not designed the way you think it should be. There's some variability between different countries, but for the most part every nation adheres to the principles I've outlined. At this point, all I can do is tell you to go to law school or audit torts and corporations so you can raise these points with subject matter experts.

5

frank_prajna t1_j5r1x8v wrote

You understand laws can be changed?

These will seem like atrocious notions one day.

−1

ShalmaneserIII t1_j5r0oeu wrote

That doesn't work. That would mean a corporation has an obligation to pay its employees, but not a right to sue someone who refuses to pay for a good or service, or the ability to own things.

2

frank_prajna t1_j5r2etx wrote

These people are making entirely too much money to have no liability.

6

frank_prajna t1_j5r2647 wrote

Again, people are making the decisions.

That's the difference between them and a company.

People are doing fucked up things because ultimately nothing will happen to them and the stock holders will be happy.

3

bumharmony t1_j5t13ma wrote

To my understanding personhood is in simplicity the abilities that makes an agent: the ability to create and follow rules and create a conception of good. And it is the atomistic type of self. Indivisible. That is why governments, companies or states cannot be persons because they can be divided into smaller pieces and most likely parts of them are ignored in a majority rule type of situations. So therefore to me representative democracy fails already for that reason.

1

WhittlingDan t1_j5qtm8u wrote

If corporations are people is the government a person?

2

Krasmaniandevil t1_j5qw76a wrote

As with most legal questions, the correct answer is "it depends."

For certain purposes, the federal government is a person: U.S. v. The Cooper Corp., (1941).

In some contexts, city/county governments are, but state or federal governments are not because they are sovereigns. Cook County v. U.S. ex rel Chandler, (2003). This actually makes sense because most municipalities are "incorporated" in the sense that they're creatures of state law.

1