4 ms·

They've always been legal persons, otherwise they couldn't be on either end of a court case. They can even be charged criminally. That's what corporate personho

They've always been legal persons, otherwise they couldn't be on either end of a court case. They can even be charged criminally. That's what corporate personhood generally used to mean.

jayd16 7y ago
You don't find OP's wording ironic in light of that fact? I do.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Corporations are legal persons, which is a legal designation and a sort of fiction. Humans are natural persons, which is both a legal reality and an actual reality. If someone says "I'm a person, corporations aren't" they're definitely talking about natural personhood, in which case they're completely correct. "Humans and corporations are both persons" is kind of facile- corporations don't have quite the same set of rights that humans do.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
davidw 7y ago
Very importantly, it also means that a corporation's assets are separate from those of its owners, so if you own a piece of a company and it gets sued, you don't lose your own home and assets if the company loses.
- vkou 7y ago
  Perhaps the hope is that corporations would behave more ethically if their owners were personally liable for them, for more then just their initial investment. A liability shield is a fantastic invention for capital owners, because when things go pear shaped, they can leave the rest of us holding the buck. Most of us aren't capital owners, in any meaningful sense, though.
  - davidw 7y ago
    If only the super wealthy could create large companies... I'm not sure things would be a lot better. Indeed, I could imagine things being significantly worse. This is an interesting book looking at how legal structures may have held back otherwise very advanced cultures in the middle east: https://www.economist.com/business/2011/01/27/the-crescent-and-the-company https://www.economist.com/business/2011/01/27/the-crescent-a... It refers to this book: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html
  - abakker 7y ago
    Retirement savings, IRAs, and pensions tend to make many people minor owners of capital.
    - vkou 7y ago
      Most Americans have less than a year's wages invested into capital, and won't be receiving a lick of pension upon retirement. If you look at the developing world, the situation is even bleaker. So, as far as ownership structures of capital go, for 95% of the population, it is a rounding error. Also, damages that required liability doesn't just magically disappear, if you fail to pass it on to a company's owners. The harm that caused the liability has already been done, the shareholders have already been paid from the profits of it - but the victims aren't getting compensation for it. In any just world, these profits would be clawed back.
      - abakker 7y ago
        I think you are right - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/how-many-americans-have-no-retirement-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/how-many-americans-have-no-r... - so, I guess I should have said "some people" have capital.
      - pathseeker 7y ago
        >Most Americans have less than a year's wages invested into capital, That's still investment. Make up your mind on if an investment implies criminal and financial liability or not. >and won't be receiving a lick of pension upon retirement. That's because pensions aren't very popular in the US. You should look into IRA's, 401ks, etc to understand how the current working class has to prepare for retirement. Pensions (at least the ones that used to be popular in the US offered by companies) are complete garbage for the very reason that they can be raided. >The harm that caused the liability has already been done, the shareholders have already been paid from the profits of it No, it's actually pretty rare for modern companies to immediately issue all profits to shareholders as dividends. >In any just world, these profits would be clawed back. Well the company gets hit with a huge fine and all of the shareholders (and bondholders in bankruptcy) lose their investment. It's very rare to find a company that did something illegal long enough to generate 100% dividends to cover the initial shareholder investment and then get caught and wiped out.
ineedasername 7y ago
I think it's the use of the word "person" in any sense that is confusing and foments anger. Better to call them "legal entities" or something. It's a very weird contortion of logic to say something like, "Only people can be the subject of a legal instrument; We need corporations to be the subject of a legal instrument; We must make corporations people." I mean, we have control over the underlying premise here. We can change it. Maybe that makes some people less angry. Maybe that makes it easier to reason about corporate issues without accidental conflation of the subtly different aspects of "person".
- roywiggins 7y ago
  I think it's a kind of path-dependency in how Anglo-American common law was agglomerated. It was easier to patch in corporations as "legal persons" than to create a parallel designation.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    Easy is not always appropriate or best. That patch in has had grave consequences.

They've always been legal persons, otherwise they couldn't be on either end of a court case. They can even be charged criminally. That's what corporate personhood generally used to mean.

jayd16 7y ago

You don't find OP's wording ironic in light of that fact? I do.

roywiggins 7y ago
Corporations are legal persons, which is a legal designation and a sort of fiction. Humans are natural persons, which is both a legal reality and an actual reality. If someone says "I'm a person, corporations aren't" they're definitely talking about natural personhood, in which case they're completely correct. "Humans and corporations are both persons" is kind of facile- corporations don't have quite the same set of rights that humans do.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

davidw 7y ago

Very importantly, it also means that a corporation's assets are separate from those of its owners, so if you own a piece of a company and it gets sued, you don't lose your own home and assets if the company loses.

vkou 7y ago
Perhaps the hope is that corporations would behave more ethically if their owners were personally liable for them, for more then just their initial investment. A liability shield is a fantastic invention for capital owners, because when things go pear shaped, they can leave the rest of us holding the buck. Most of us aren't capital owners, in any meaningful sense, though.
- davidw 7y ago
  If only the super wealthy could create large companies... I'm not sure things would be a lot better. Indeed, I could imagine things being significantly worse. This is an interesting book looking at how legal structures may have held back otherwise very advanced cultures in the middle east: https://www.economist.com/business/2011/01/27/the-crescent-and-the-company https://www.economist.com/business/2011/01/27/the-crescent-a... It refers to this book: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html
- abakker 7y ago
  Retirement savings, IRAs, and pensions tend to make many people minor owners of capital.
  - vkou 7y ago
    Most Americans have less than a year's wages invested into capital, and won't be receiving a lick of pension upon retirement. If you look at the developing world, the situation is even bleaker. So, as far as ownership structures of capital go, for 95% of the population, it is a rounding error. Also, damages that required liability doesn't just magically disappear, if you fail to pass it on to a company's owners. The harm that caused the liability has already been done, the shareholders have already been paid from the profits of it - but the victims aren't getting compensation for it. In any just world, these profits would be clawed back.
    - abakker 7y ago
      I think you are right - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/how-many-americans-have-no-retirement-savings.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/11/how-many-americans-have-no-r... - so, I guess I should have said "some people" have capital.
    - pathseeker 7y ago
      >Most Americans have less than a year's wages invested into capital, That's still investment. Make up your mind on if an investment implies criminal and financial liability or not. >and won't be receiving a lick of pension upon retirement. That's because pensions aren't very popular in the US. You should look into IRA's, 401ks, etc to understand how the current working class has to prepare for retirement. Pensions (at least the ones that used to be popular in the US offered by companies) are complete garbage for the very reason that they can be raided. >The harm that caused the liability has already been done, the shareholders have already been paid from the profits of it No, it's actually pretty rare for modern companies to immediately issue all profits to shareholders as dividends. >In any just world, these profits would be clawed back. Well the company gets hit with a huge fine and all of the shareholders (and bondholders in bankruptcy) lose their investment. It's very rare to find a company that did something illegal long enough to generate 100% dividends to cover the initial shareholder investment and then get caught and wiped out.

ineedasername 7y ago

I think it's the use of the word "person" in any sense that is confusing and foments anger. Better to call them "legal entities" or something. It's a very weird contortion of logic to say something like, "Only people can be the subject of a legal instrument; We need corporations to be the subject of a legal instrument; We must make corporations people." I mean, we have control over the underlying premise here. We can change it. Maybe that makes some people less angry. Maybe that makes it easier to reason about corporate issues without accidental conflation of the subtly different aspects of "person".

roywiggins 7y ago
I think it's a kind of path-dependency in how Anglo-American common law was agglomerated. It was easier to patch in corporations as "legal persons" than to create a parallel designation.
- ddingus 7y ago
  Easy is not always appropriate or best. That patch in has had grave consequences.