Submitted by smurfyjenkins t3_1027s43 in science
Reply to comment by smarterthanawaffle in European economies have developed stronger anti-trust regulations, more competitive markets, and more robust consumer protection than the US in the last 20 years. The reason for this is the EU. EU member states are incentivized to empower a strongly independent pro-competition regulator. by smurfyjenkins
Corporate personhood is actually a European concept in origin
And AFAIK is the standard almost everywhere. Without it contracts would be very difficult between companies.
The citizens united decision is not the decision that gave corporations personhood.
But it is the decision that muddle the difference between legal personhood and individual personhood.
I mean not really. My understanding is that it was about whether a corporation has the same free speech rights as an individual specifically around political speech and by extension donations.
I'm not American though so unless there were other cases built on this one that had that effect im keen to learn.
There really isn't a muddying of the waters either. People get upset that the controlling parties of corporations aren't charged with crimes a corporation commits but don't really understand what it would take to find an individual liable. Where does the buck stop? For what kind of crimes? Is it reasonable for a CEO to know what's every employee is doing and if its criminal? And to be clear you can pierce the corporate veil and go after individuals if you can prove they did in fact commit a crime too.
Its a complex issue but its one that has been going on since people began forming groups to undertake business activities. And I dont think any country has it perfect but citizens united didnt suddenly change the concept of corporate personhood. Just my 2 cents.
And I think you don't understand that you openly support corporations getting most of the benefits of personhood while not getting the responsibilities that usually go along with them.
And there certainly were other decisions that built on it. Effectively, it gave the "speech" of corporate interests a reach no individual can hope to reach. And yet, an individual, by its very nature, has an individual opinion. What, pray tell, is the "opinion" of a corporation? And what's the purpose of forming one outside matters directly related to its operations?
I'm not sure why you got so snarky in your response. I would love American corporations to be further regulated to level the playing field. In Australia political advertising is highly controlled so we don't have the issue citizens united brought with it.
What I am saying is its important not to conflate the two. Its highly complicated. If a corp is privately owned then the opinions are whatever the controlling parties say they are. its very much more murky with publicly traded companies where there isn't a single 50%+1 share holder but that is the role of the board of directors and CEO. its then open to those who own shares to continue to own them or sell their ownership stake if they disagree.
What I'm trying to convey is that corporate personhood isn't the issue. The issue is your regulations around what corporations can and cannot do.
If you have links to cases that have been built on CU then I would love to read them and learn more.
But European legislation distinguishes between a legal personhood and an individual personhood. A company, a chartered society, an NGO etc. are a legal person, because they have to be able to engage into contracts etc. as a "person", as a singular entity, especially inasmuch as they are not owner-led where the owner stands for the company and makes decisions for it.
But that doesn't mean that a legal person has the same rights as an individual person.
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments