3 ms·

You can sue the government even though they aren't granted personhood.

ac29 6y ago
Its harder to sue the government than you might think, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- monocasa 6y ago
  Regardless, the argument there isn't that you can't sue the government at all, but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. Going back to the original point, personhood is clearly not a requirement for being named in a suit. For more examples you can also see in rem cases, where the government sues property itself for civil forfeiture. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness did not need personhood to be named in a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_Packages_of_Articles_Labeled_in_Part_Mrs._Moffat%27s_Shoo-Fly_Powders_for_Drunkenness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_...
  - iudqnolq 6y ago
    > but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. It's actually the opposite. You can only sue the government when they explicitly give you permission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The whole point I'm making here is that you can sue an entity without personhood.
      - iudqnolq 6y ago
        That's right. I just pointed out the one of the pieces of evidence you used is slightly wrong. Suing the government is a very special case.
        monocasa 6y ago
        See the "Exceptions and abrogation" section of your own citation. It is indeed a (albeit large) subset of actions to which they can apply sovereign immunity.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        Yes. All I'm trying to say is it's opt-in, not opt out. I don't find this particularly interesting or important so this is the last comment I'll make here.
        monocasa 6y ago
        Except it's not opt-in for a certain subset of actions of the government. For instance they can't block a discrimination suit on sovereign immunity grounds.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Civil forfeiture where govt sues "property" to seize it so they don't have to have a trial for the person owning said property is a shady dark pattern that shouldn't be cited as an ethical approach at all. Just my opinion.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      It's not being cited as an ethical approach, only that the court system clearly doesn't require something to have full personhood in order to be sued.
jameshart 6y ago
‘Granted personhood’ doesn’t mean anything. The relevant legal term is ‘legal personality’. Governments certainly have legal personality. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to enter into contracts, file lawsuits, or... really make any claim to exist in any meaningful way.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Is the government itself granted first amendment protections as an association of citizens? Or is it thought of a fundamentally different sort of entity, that yes can enter some sorts of legal arrangements, but isn't granted all the rights of a citizen?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - simonh 6y ago
    The details of that probably haven't been settled by supreme court rulings, but the basic principle is that when a corporate entity says something, what's actually happening is that a person in the company is saying this thing, on the behalf of other people in that company, on behalf of, etc until you get to the shareholders. It's people all the way down, and people have rights. The same could be said of the government. Note I'm a British Citizen, but the same basic legal principles apply over here, and have done for hundreds of years. I know there's a widely held conspiracy theory that this is all new, but jurists and legal scholars have been discussing and applying these principles for a very long time.

ac29 6y ago

Its harder to sue the government than you might think, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

monocasa 6y ago
Regardless, the argument there isn't that you can't sue the government at all, but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. Going back to the original point, personhood is clearly not a requirement for being named in a suit. For more examples you can also see in rem cases, where the government sues property itself for civil forfeiture. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness did not need personhood to be named in a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_Packages_of_Articles_Labeled_in_Part_Mrs._Moffat%27s_Shoo-Fly_Powders_for_Drunkenness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_...
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  > but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. It's actually the opposite. You can only sue the government when they explicitly give you permission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The whole point I'm making here is that you can sue an entity without personhood.
    - iudqnolq 6y ago
      That's right. I just pointed out the one of the pieces of evidence you used is slightly wrong. Suing the government is a very special case.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        See the "Exceptions and abrogation" section of your own citation. It is indeed a (albeit large) subset of actions to which they can apply sovereign immunity.
        iudqnolq 6y ago
        Yes. All I'm trying to say is it's opt-in, not opt out. I don't find this particularly interesting or important so this is the last comment I'll make here.
        monocasa 6y ago
        Except it's not opt-in for a certain subset of actions of the government. For instance they can't block a discrimination suit on sovereign immunity grounds.
- r00fus 6y ago
  Civil forfeiture where govt sues "property" to seize it so they don't have to have a trial for the person owning said property is a shady dark pattern that shouldn't be cited as an ethical approach at all. Just my opinion.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    It's not being cited as an ethical approach, only that the court system clearly doesn't require something to have full personhood in order to be sued.

jameshart 6y ago

‘Granted personhood’ doesn’t mean anything. The relevant legal term is ‘legal personality’. Governments certainly have legal personality. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be able to enter into contracts, file lawsuits, or... really make any claim to exist in any meaningful way.

monocasa 6y ago
Is the government itself granted first amendment protections as an association of citizens? Or is it thought of a fundamentally different sort of entity, that yes can enter some sorts of legal arrangements, but isn't granted all the rights of a citizen?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  The details of that probably haven't been settled by supreme court rulings, but the basic principle is that when a corporate entity says something, what's actually happening is that a person in the company is saying this thing, on the behalf of other people in that company, on behalf of, etc until you get to the shareholders. It's people all the way down, and people have rights. The same could be said of the government. Note I'm a British Citizen, but the same basic legal principles apply over here, and have done for hundreds of years. I know there's a widely held conspiracy theory that this is all new, but jurists and legal scholars have been discussing and applying these principles for a very long time.