10 ms·

it's a well reasoned look at framing the observable results of corporate behavior in the context of allowable human behavior; this is an important issue in ligh

it's a well reasoned look at framing the observable results of corporate behavior in the context of allowable human behavior; this is an important issue in light of the the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. watching the corporation is an excellent way to better understand the way our world works, whether or not you agree with the sentiment that corps have a moral obligation to anything. it's a bit of an intro-level look at the issue. for more of the same i can't recommend adam curtis's series of bbc documentaries.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
...the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. No they aren't. In coding terms, this is a LegalPerson: interface LegalPerson { public void signContract(Contract c); public void enforceContract(Contract c); public void sue(Lawsuit s); // Plus a few more } class Human implements LegalPerson, HumanRightsHolder, etc { ... } class Corporation implements LegalPerson, Property { ... } LegalPerson is just an interface. Whenever you deal with a LegalPerson, you can use the enforceContract method, etc. Since Netflix implements LegalPerson, I don't care about their implementation details. We have a contract - they owe me 3 DVDs and I owe them $14.00/month. Because of legal personhood, I need not worry about Netflix corporate structure or other implementation details.
- meatsock 16y ago
  well that's a clever way of framing the issue in code, but i think the point of the movie is that your comment '//plus a few more' is a grey area wide enough to drive a feature film through. law deals mostly with edge cases (in that the easily decided issues aren't interesting in terms of new law) your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for your tap water or shut your factory down without regard to the human consequences. if you have an abstraction for dealing with those situations i look forward to it.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    A LegalPerson implements the methods signContract, enforceContract, sue, beSued, ownProperty, transferProperty, and I think that's about it. That's what was hiding in my "plus a few more". LegalPerson does not need to implement getPersonalityType. If you have a problem with the Bolivian government passing a law making it illegal for anyone besides Bechtel to sell water, take that up with the Bolivian government. That has nothing to do with corporate personhood. They could easily have granted monopoly rights to a flesh and blood person - would that have changed things? I'm not trying to address the "oh noes, big scary corporations, lets pretend they have a mean personality" part of the movie. I'm just pointing out that corporate personhood doesn't mean what you think it means.
    - meatsock 16y ago
      right so in your model you're not addressing the moral impact of strategy decisions, because it doesn't make sense for an org, but the reason it's not addressed in discourse related to people is that it's inferred. any entity that's described in any terms has a responsibility to not be against people.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Legal personhood is about creating a single entity for counterparties to sue and a single entity which owns corporate property. I'm not attempting to engage in the completely orthogonal issues which you are raising. But let me point out one specific place where you are wrong: your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for your tap water... This is utterly false. If you wish to file a lawsuit in any of these cases, you will sue one of two legal persons: Bechtel or the Bolivian government. You just go to court and name them in your suit. Figuring out the internal organization of Bechtel Bolivia, Inc. is not your problem - it's up to someone on the other side of that interface to figure out, e.g., how to pay damages if they lose. (I'm assuming the Bolivian Govt. is a legal person, I'm not sure of this. If not, your lawsuit will be considerably trickier.)
- j_baker 16y ago
  Corporations have a lot of the same rights as people though. That was one of the big deals about the supreme court striking down campaign finance reform: the idea that corporations have the freedom of speech to influence elections. The case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
  - firebones 16y ago
    To co-opt the analogy, a more illustrative programming language might be Ruby rather than Java, to reflect the ability of the courts and Congress to monkeypatch the original implementation.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Citizens United was not about corporate personhood at all, it was about freedom of speech. From the decision: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Corporate personhood is irrelevant as far as Citizens United vs FEC goes, except in minor points (Citizens United, rather than a list of members of Citizens United, was one party in court). The only "rights" corporations have is the same rights that property of their members has. If you pass a law saying my computer can't criticize the government, you've violated my freedom of speech. The court ruled that you similarly can't pass a law saying my corporation can't criticize the government - that would violate my rights, not my corporations rights.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

...the law's assertion that corporations are legal entities in as much as humans are. No they aren't. In coding terms, this is a LegalPerson: interface LegalPerson { public void signContract(Contract c); public void enforceContract(Contract c); public void sue(Lawsuit s); // Plus a few more } class Human implements LegalPerson, HumanRightsHolder, etc { ... } class Corporation implements LegalPerson, Property { ... } LegalPerson is just an interface. Whenever you deal with a LegalPerson, you can use the enforceContract method, etc. Since Netflix implements LegalPerson, I don't care about their implementation details. We have a contract - they owe me 3 DVDs and I owe them $14.00/month. Because of legal personhood, I need not worry about Netflix corporate structure or other implementation details.

meatsock 16y ago
well that's a clever way of framing the issue in code, but i think the point of the movie is that your comment '//plus a few more' is a grey area wide enough to drive a feature film through. law deals mostly with edge cases (in that the easily decided issues aren't interesting in terms of new law) your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for your tap water or shut your factory down without regard to the human consequences. if you have an abstraction for dealing with those situations i look forward to it.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  A LegalPerson implements the methods signContract, enforceContract, sue, beSued, ownProperty, transferProperty, and I think that's about it. That's what was hiding in my "plus a few more". LegalPerson does not need to implement getPersonalityType. If you have a problem with the Bolivian government passing a law making it illegal for anyone besides Bechtel to sell water, take that up with the Bolivian government. That has nothing to do with corporate personhood. They could easily have granted monopoly rights to a flesh and blood person - would that have changed things? I'm not trying to address the "oh noes, big scary corporations, lets pretend they have a mean personality" part of the movie. I'm just pointing out that corporate personhood doesn't mean what you think it means.
  - meatsock 16y ago
    right so in your model you're not addressing the moral impact of strategy decisions, because it doesn't make sense for an org, but the reason it's not addressed in discourse related to people is that it's inferred. any entity that's described in any terms has a responsibility to not be against people.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Legal personhood is about creating a single entity for counterparties to sue and a single entity which owns corporate property. I'm not attempting to engage in the completely orthogonal issues which you are raising. But let me point out one specific place where you are wrong: your other point, that you don't have to worry about implementation details is true until someone tries to bill you for your tap water... This is utterly false. If you wish to file a lawsuit in any of these cases, you will sue one of two legal persons: Bechtel or the Bolivian government. You just go to court and name them in your suit. Figuring out the internal organization of Bechtel Bolivia, Inc. is not your problem - it's up to someone on the other side of that interface to figure out, e.g., how to pay damages if they lose. (I'm assuming the Bolivian Govt. is a legal person, I'm not sure of this. If not, your lawsuit will be considerably trickier.)
j_baker 16y ago
Corporations have a lot of the same rights as people though. That was one of the big deals about the supreme court striking down campaign finance reform: the idea that corporations have the freedom of speech to influence elections. The case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
- firebones 16y ago
  To co-opt the analogy, a more illustrative programming language might be Ruby rather than Java, to reflect the ability of the courts and Congress to monkeypatch the original implementation.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Citizens United was not about corporate personhood at all, it was about freedom of speech. From the decision: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Corporate personhood is irrelevant as far as Citizens United vs FEC goes, except in minor points (Citizens United, rather than a list of members of Citizens United, was one party in court). The only "rights" corporations have is the same rights that property of their members has. If you pass a law saying my computer can't criticize the government, you've violated my freedom of speech. The court ruled that you similarly can't pass a law saying my corporation can't criticize the government - that would violate my rights, not my corporations rights.