Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nenor t1_j5snqsc wrote

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

It's a foundational decision for a legal system, for sure. But, having legal personhood for companies has a lot more benefits than drawbacks.

For example, if we didn't decide to have it, then it wouldn't be possible for companies to enter intro contracts. It would have to be just be one (or more) person signing the contract in his name. The companies wouldn't be able to buy equipment, it would have to be owned by certain individuals in the company. But since these individuals cannot enter a labor contract with it, they can leave at any time, taking the equipment.

Without personhood, you would also forgo the concept of limited liability. Thus, every investor would be fully liable for all debts of the company, not just the amount they want to invest.

Without personhood, you are also unable to sue companies. You would have to sue individuals.

There are plenty of other examples, but these are the most important ones.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j5t1ure wrote

all of those examples are good for capitalism and bad for society. that actually checks out for why we have them though.

−1

Nenor t1_j5t9qxy wrote

Strongly disagree. What good would it be for society, if you cannot sue a company? What about the consumption of all goods and services that society needs, which will not be produced without companies? Without it, basically everyone will need to fend for themselves about everything - produce their own food, own machines, own railroads, own airplanes, ships, cars, etc. (which will not happen, so society will have to make do without any of it). And for what? What benefit would we gain by letting go of this? Cannot think of much, certainly nothing material enough to warrant a serious consideration.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j5ueyr0 wrote

You made some wild conjecture here. I did not say that companies should not exist. But you cannot prove that a company needs to be a person in order to produce things. At least you have not tried to. People own companies. People can enter into contracts. People can be sued. The only thing a company getting to be a person does is protect the people that run the company from the liability of their actions.

1

Solutide t1_j60ne89 wrote

No it does not protect the people that “run” the company, it protect the people that “own” the company.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j63f6i1 wrote

a distinction without a difference but thanks for your interesting addition. Have you never heard of a board of directors removing a CEO based on shareholder votes? That's running the company by the people who own it.

−1

Solutide t1_j6c1x54 wrote

How is that running the company? By your logic, the president is voted by the American people, that mean to the people is running the government? That is called exercising ownership right. The shareholders don’t run the company, but they have limited control over it. You either lack the most basic understanding of how corporate ownership(and ownership in general) work or are being willfully ignorant to support your flimsy argument.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j6ijwel wrote

Are you talking about America? The country once described as Of the People, By the People, For the People. That country? The people aren't running that government? Stop proving my points and work on your own.

1

Solutide t1_j6jq5j1 wrote

How is that slogan equal to the people making all the decisions of the government? What do you think “running” something mean? If you own a car, then you lend that car to friend to drive, who do you think is driving the goddam car? Just bcs you own the car, and have the right to take back the car if you so choose, doesn’t mean you are “running” the car. And if your friend kill someone with your car without your knowledge, you don’t take responsibility for your friend action. Does that make sense? Or I suggest you go read a book or something. Its not my job to be your teacher.

1

JonBonFucki t1_j6kg9aa wrote

thank goodness that's not your job. I don't have any interest in baseless conjecture and whining.

1