15 ms·

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them. Personhood has its own c

by bmelton 11y ago

On the contrary, if corporations didn't have personhood, we could not sue them when they did wrong, or enter into contracts with them. Personhood has its own challenges for sure, but it originates more to protect people than it does to advantage corporations.

elevenfist 11y ago
The point that's being missed in this discussion is that corporations are abstract entities defined by the state and society, ideally for society's benefit (otherwise why the hell would or should they exist, and also the original corp was for public benefit). These abstract entities can be given attributes, rights, relationships, etc. as needed, but they do not have any inherent properties in and of themselves. Corporate personhood is an analogy, and a poor one at that. Many of the properties we assign to personhood are not suitable for corporations.
- bmelton 11y ago
  I dunno what gives you the impression that I've missed that point, really, but the scope of your message, which comes across to me as "perhaps we could slightly restructure the rights and responsibilities of corporations to better fit what we see as their role in society" is dramatically different from "Corporate Personhood is such a horrible idea that it just doesn't make any sense at all." Both statements are equally true, as is my rebuttal. We perhaps could reframe the rights of corporations, but abolishing personhood would likely make the situation far worse than it makes anything better, as we then lose the ability to enter contracts with or sue corporations. Much of the abilities of corporations that stem from personhood are commensurate with their other roles. I personally don't see a problem with corporations having representation, as those same corporations are otherwise bound by the laws of the land. Despite the "Wal-Mart is not a person" rhetoric, it's worth noting that many corporations are sole proprietorships, or, rephrased, people, and if they have the responsibility of obeying the whimsy of the legislature in the myriad regulations they are responsible to perform (worth noting, corporate responsibilities are typically far more burdensome than personal responsibilities) that they have the right to speak out against that whimsy where they wish. That isn't to suggest that my word is definite, and there's definitely wiggle room to restructure, but as it stands, corporations have burdens, and knee jerk responses neither obviate nor necessarily better the proportionality of their rights in response to those burdens. Ut totum, abolishing personhood is, I think, as horrible an idea as mandatory mediation.
takeda 11y ago
I think you should note that "protect people" is in the sense that instead of suing CEO & board members you're suing the company. So it doesn't affect them personally.
- bmelton 11y ago
  What I meant, specifically, was that "protect people" is in the sense that if corporations did not have personhood, then we could not sue them. Large hospital accidentally chops off both your legs? Too bad, suckah. Can't sue. Yes, it also protects the employees and board members of said company from personal responsibility sometimes, and that is indeed a feature of personhood, but it also protects the consumers of a corporation's products, whether we realize it or not.
aidenn0 11y ago
Corporate personhood protects individuals at the company and limits the liability of shareholders. I think there are positive indirect benefits to the economy at large, but I would certainly think that the direct benefits are clearly in favor of the owners and executives of the corporation.
Avshalom 11y ago
There is nothing in the constitution that says we can't sue legal constructs which means that while tort law and contract law might need to be updated (and while not a lawyer I suspect there is already a lot of parallel law for these cases because corporate personhood is a leaky abstraction) it certainly wouldn't be impossible. And of course this ignores the fact that corporations with personhood are not the only way to organize a company or the only way to limit liability.

by bmelton 11y ago

elevenfist 11y ago

The point that's being missed in this discussion is that corporations are abstract entities defined by the state and society, ideally for society's benefit (otherwise why the hell would or should they exist, and also the original corp was for public benefit). These abstract entities can be given attributes, rights, relationships, etc. as needed, but they do not have any inherent properties in and of themselves. Corporate personhood is an analogy, and a poor one at that. Many of the properties we assign to personhood are not suitable for corporations.

bmelton 11y ago
I dunno what gives you the impression that I've missed that point, really, but the scope of your message, which comes across to me as "perhaps we could slightly restructure the rights and responsibilities of corporations to better fit what we see as their role in society" is dramatically different from "Corporate Personhood is such a horrible idea that it just doesn't make any sense at all." Both statements are equally true, as is my rebuttal. We perhaps could reframe the rights of corporations, but abolishing personhood would likely make the situation far worse than it makes anything better, as we then lose the ability to enter contracts with or sue corporations. Much of the abilities of corporations that stem from personhood are commensurate with their other roles. I personally don't see a problem with corporations having representation, as those same corporations are otherwise bound by the laws of the land. Despite the "Wal-Mart is not a person" rhetoric, it's worth noting that many corporations are sole proprietorships, or, rephrased, people, and if they have the responsibility of obeying the whimsy of the legislature in the myriad regulations they are responsible to perform (worth noting, corporate responsibilities are typically far more burdensome than personal responsibilities) that they have the right to speak out against that whimsy where they wish. That isn't to suggest that my word is definite, and there's definitely wiggle room to restructure, but as it stands, corporations have burdens, and knee jerk responses neither obviate nor necessarily better the proportionality of their rights in response to those burdens. Ut totum, abolishing personhood is, I think, as horrible an idea as mandatory mediation.

takeda 11y ago

I think you should note that "protect people" is in the sense that instead of suing CEO & board members you're suing the company. So it doesn't affect them personally.

bmelton 11y ago
What I meant, specifically, was that "protect people" is in the sense that if corporations did not have personhood, then we could not sue them. Large hospital accidentally chops off both your legs? Too bad, suckah. Can't sue. Yes, it also protects the employees and board members of said company from personal responsibility sometimes, and that is indeed a feature of personhood, but it also protects the consumers of a corporation's products, whether we realize it or not.

aidenn0 11y ago

Corporate personhood protects individuals at the company and limits the liability of shareholders. I think there are positive indirect benefits to the economy at large, but I would certainly think that the direct benefits are clearly in favor of the owners and executives of the corporation.

Avshalom 11y ago

There is nothing in the constitution that says we can't sue legal constructs which means that while tort law and contract law might need to be updated (and while not a lawyer I suspect there is already a lot of parallel law for these cases because corporate personhood is a leaky abstraction) it certainly wouldn't be impossible. And of course this ignores the fact that corporations with personhood are not the only way to organize a company or the only way to limit liability.