3 ms·

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

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.)

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.)