4 ms·

The fact that I can not own parts of my body but an organization can, sort of undermines any claim that the current rules exist out of fears of slippery slopes

The fact that I can not own parts of my body but an organization can, sort of undermines any claim that the current rules exist out of fears of slippery slopes to slavery.

deogeo 8y ago
It's bizarre - if corporations are people, then surely the converse is true as well?
- menzoic 8y ago
  Roses are flowers. Not all flowers are roses.
  - salawat 8y ago
    Um... I think you just kind of fell down a set of logic stairs there amigo. While your and GP posts were valid, this is a case of valid reasoning being applied to unsound premises in that a corporation is not granted these property rights through personhood, but via it's being a corporation. This is one of the things that makes me spit every time I think of conceptual train wreck that was Citizens United. Corporations were not meant to be people. They were logical constructs with just enough personhood to distinguish the economic institution from the people making it up in the eyes of the law, such that higher risk ventures could be more easily undertaken through pooling of resources, and distribution of risk. That means, it is a false assumption to think of a corporation as Person+. It's more a case of being a !Person. Frankly, the entire idea of property rights sort of breaks down in light of possession being 9/10's of the law w.r.t your own body. As a free agent, you can do what you want. Just... Understand the additional risk brought on by the legal system rapidly backpedaling away if you do something outside the few clearly established guidelines, and other people with no interest in testing potential legal waters that may destroy them will have very little in the way of external incentive to help you do it. One of the things most uncomfortable about a common law system is how precedent in unrelated areas can composite together to create a law where no intent to have such a thing was ever established.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
onetimemanytime 8y ago
They have to make x medicine to save millions of lives. That requires "body parts" (cells) to test so they have to "own" them. Corporations do not own people in the slave sense, and Google's CEO can't walk to a random employee and say, "as a Google CEO, I want to chop off your leg since it's ours."
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  I agree in essence, the judges are making decisions based on their opinion of fair compensation. They feel the patent developer deserves the wealth not the person who happens to be born with X. Bu there is no consistent way to reconcile this with idea of property since "extreme enrichment of persons born with X" is an inevitable consequence. I don't think this will be allowed to deteriorate into slavery but there was a claim that body parts can't be owned due to slavery concerns. This is clearly not the case because under the current law 1) organizations can own modified body parts originating from a person who can't own them and 2) verdicts on the matter are inconsistent in every way except one: sending wealth to the "right" parties in that particular judges opinion.

The fact that I can not own parts of my body but an organization can, sort of undermines any claim that the current rules exist out of fears of slippery slopes to slavery.

deogeo 8y ago

It's bizarre - if corporations are people, then surely the converse is true as well?

menzoic 8y ago
Roses are flowers. Not all flowers are roses.
- salawat 8y ago
  Um... I think you just kind of fell down a set of logic stairs there amigo. While your and GP posts were valid, this is a case of valid reasoning being applied to unsound premises in that a corporation is not granted these property rights through personhood, but via it's being a corporation. This is one of the things that makes me spit every time I think of conceptual train wreck that was Citizens United. Corporations were not meant to be people. They were logical constructs with just enough personhood to distinguish the economic institution from the people making it up in the eyes of the law, such that higher risk ventures could be more easily undertaken through pooling of resources, and distribution of risk. That means, it is a false assumption to think of a corporation as Person+. It's more a case of being a !Person. Frankly, the entire idea of property rights sort of breaks down in light of possession being 9/10's of the law w.r.t your own body. As a free agent, you can do what you want. Just... Understand the additional risk brought on by the legal system rapidly backpedaling away if you do something outside the few clearly established guidelines, and other people with no interest in testing potential legal waters that may destroy them will have very little in the way of external incentive to help you do it. One of the things most uncomfortable about a common law system is how precedent in unrelated areas can composite together to create a law where no intent to have such a thing was ever established.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

onetimemanytime 8y ago

They have to make x medicine to save millions of lives. That requires "body parts" (cells) to test so they have to "own" them. Corporations do not own people in the slave sense, and Google's CEO can't walk to a random employee and say, "as a Google CEO, I want to chop off your leg since it's ours."

TomMckenny 8y ago
I agree in essence, the judges are making decisions based on their opinion of fair compensation. They feel the patent developer deserves the wealth not the person who happens to be born with X. Bu there is no consistent way to reconcile this with idea of property since "extreme enrichment of persons born with X" is an inevitable consequence. I don't think this will be allowed to deteriorate into slavery but there was a claim that body parts can't be owned due to slavery concerns. This is clearly not the case because under the current law 1) organizations can own modified body parts originating from a person who can't own them and 2) verdicts on the matter are inconsistent in every way except one: sending wealth to the "right" parties in that particular judges opinion.