3 ms·

In the US courts also give corporations some of the rights of real people, on the theory that corporations are "just" groups of people and so we can't strip rig

In the US courts also give corporations some of the rights of real people, on the theory that corporations are "just" groups of people and so we can't strip rights just because people are working together.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
The corporation exists to give new rights to a new entity (the corporation). Nothing prevents a group of people working together without a corporation - they form a corporation because they want their collaborative effort protected from individual liability. If they don't want any change in their legal rights and responsibilities, it is simple - don't form a corporation. If they do, I'm fine with denoting the newly formed entity as something other than a person, and with not giving it the same rights as its owners.
- kube-system 4y ago
  > Nothing prevents a group of people working together without a corporation Practicality of the legal system does, given modern finance. Any Fortune 500 company has hundreds of thousands if not millions of owners. Listing them all on a contract would be impractical and suing them would be equally impractical. > I'm fine with denoting the newly formed entity as something other than a person, and with not giving it the same rights as its owners. Well, we already do that. Corporate persons do not count as natural persons under the law. If you’re frustrated that a law doesn’t specify that, that’s a problem with that law not a problem with recognizing corporations as named legal entities.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    The frustration with Citizens is that it accorded a right that a lot of people believes is a function of natural personhood to a corporation. More fundamentally, the first amendment is not a law, and the Constitution in general does not make the distinction that you are referring to. I am fairly certain that had the law in question for Citizens made the distinction you are referring to, the legal challenge would still have made it to the SCOTUS, and they would still have ruled the way they did.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      I agree that it's a problem. The solution is not `rm -rf corporate_law`, the solution is to `git add amendment_34 && git commit -m 'fix citizens united' ` And yes, the Bill of Rights is law, and as such it is within the legislative's power to change.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        My proposed solution is to restrict Citizens to non-profit corporations, thus leaving it in place for PACs, advocacy groups, lobbying groups and others, but removing speech rights from corporations explicitly created to facilitate the generation and distribution of profit.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

The corporation exists to give new rights to a new entity (the corporation). Nothing prevents a group of people working together without a corporation - they form a corporation because they want their collaborative effort protected from individual liability. If they don't want any change in their legal rights and responsibilities, it is simple - don't form a corporation. If they do, I'm fine with denoting the newly formed entity as something other than a person, and with not giving it the same rights as its owners.

kube-system 4y ago
> Nothing prevents a group of people working together without a corporation Practicality of the legal system does, given modern finance. Any Fortune 500 company has hundreds of thousands if not millions of owners. Listing them all on a contract would be impractical and suing them would be equally impractical. > I'm fine with denoting the newly formed entity as something other than a person, and with not giving it the same rights as its owners. Well, we already do that. Corporate persons do not count as natural persons under the law. If you’re frustrated that a law doesn’t specify that, that’s a problem with that law not a problem with recognizing corporations as named legal entities.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  The frustration with Citizens is that it accorded a right that a lot of people believes is a function of natural personhood to a corporation. More fundamentally, the first amendment is not a law, and the Constitution in general does not make the distinction that you are referring to. I am fairly certain that had the law in question for Citizens made the distinction you are referring to, the legal challenge would still have made it to the SCOTUS, and they would still have ruled the way they did.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    I agree that it's a problem. The solution is not `rm -rf corporate_law`, the solution is to `git add amendment_34 && git commit -m 'fix citizens united' ` And yes, the Bill of Rights is law, and as such it is within the legislative's power to change.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      My proposed solution is to restrict Citizens to non-profit corporations, thus leaving it in place for PACs, advocacy groups, lobbying groups and others, but removing speech rights from corporations explicitly created to facilitate the generation and distribution of profit.