3 ms·

"Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any

"Owners of companies also have a reasonable expectation to use the companies they own to exercise their rights too." This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. You have many rights related to privacy and sexual reproduction that can not and should not be exercised through companies. There is also laxk of responsebility, if you commit crimes individually you will be in jail for the rest of your life, but companies get away with it regularly. Both due to power of money and diffusion of reaponsebility

simonh 5y ago
It makes sense to exercise some rights though a company or similar organisation, such as a charity, NGO or political party, and not others. >This seems neither logical nor to have any legal basis. As I said, it has a long history and sound basis in common law jurisprudence in the west going back at least to medieval law, and in other cultures going back even further. The very word corporation, or incorporation (corpus being Latin for body), expresses the principle of representing and acting on behalf of a body of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood