7 ms·

Corporate insecthood (2022)

45 points by zdw 4y ago

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
The hum of all drones is larger than the sum of the clones. Synergistic buzzing, vague wording, public relations and human resources, all good for emptying your purses. Bzzt! Bzzt! :->
forevergreenyon 4y ago
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person My opinion is that "of course" they are; but that this also poses a challenge to our pre-corporate notion (conceptualization) of personhood. My chosen way to make sense of this is that corporations are a person of a type person that exists above the layer (or 'strata') in which typical individual humans are persons. I say 'above' because human individuals are one of the main 'ingredients' that come together to form corporate persons. the picture is how there are 'personhoods' of (at least) two distinct layers or strata: individual and collective persons. So the human individuals come together to form corporate individuals, a sort of meta-person. And I mean this very much in the sense of an egregore; the main difference being how earlier large bureaucracies would use papers and letters and such, but corporate bureaucracies are now fully digitized and using computers in networks.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  What is the use of such a definition that needs to be qualified so much? Its not a philosophical question, you don't need to decide it. Its just legal argument people came up with to try and give companies broad liberties to make more money. The article posted is about people's perceptions, of which it seems you are an outlier :).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- devmor 4y ago
  By this logic, any group of people cooperating to do anything is also a person. That is utterly nonsensical - what is the point of defining a group of people as a person?
  - forevergreenyon 4y ago
    yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too. but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
    - mypastself 4y ago
      That definition could also apply to nations, religious groups, sports teams, and many other types of organization, completely redefining the term “person”. What would be the purpose?
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        You're staring down a rabbit hole. If want answers to some of these questions, enjoy: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140721.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism Note: there are no real answers here, of course. I think the "purpose" though would be a less myopic view of what a person is. Notably, that there's no reason "person" and "homo sapien" should be synonymous. Once you admit that, then things start to get really fuzzy and we need a framework to get back to something that makes sense.
        mypastself 4y ago
        Until we gain a proper understanding and definition of consciousness, the matter is almost purely linguistic. Redefining the term “person” could happen if there’s a critical mass for it, but I think it’s unlikely because it would almost certainly serve to confuse, rather than inform, at least in everyday communication. I haven’t looked deeply into the linked paper yet (although it does look interesting), but I’ve given the philosophical matter some amount of thought before. I can only be (fairly) certain of the existence of my own consciousness. There’s no reason to think I’m special in regards to other people, so it’s safe to assume they have it as well. Animals seem to exhibit similar behaviors, and since we have a shared evolutionary background, I’d include many animal species, too. Can’t say much for anything beyond that, regardless of how convincing, say, an AI’s words might sound. A photorealistic painting might also fool me, but I still wouldn’t attribute personhood to it afterwards. The Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” did slightly change my mind on this matter, though. If we ever construct an artificial intelligence sufficiently similar to a human, it might be wise to err on the side of caution with respect to ethical treatment.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I'm not sure 'meta-person' makes much sense. 'Meta-data' is data about data, but what's a meta-person? A person composed of other people? Would such a person-made-of-people have free will, or would its actions be constrained by majority groupthink outcomes? In the case of today's corporations, it's just the executive board (selected by the shareholders) that makes the decisions, with no input from the employees except in places like Germany where labor unions often have board seats. Meta-executive, perhaps? Interestingly, if corporations are people, do states in the USA with the death penalty have the right to dissolve corporations that commit murder? How would a corporation be incarcerated for a crime like bank robbery, what would a prison for corporations look like? It's hard to conclude that corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction whose true intent is to expand the liability protection for shareholders and protect internal corporate documents from legal discovery and so on.
rhaway84773 4y ago
Of course corporations shouldn’t be considered persons. They’re corporations. Now it’s possible there’s a complete intersection in the legal rules which apply to persons and corporations, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same type of entities. It’s useful to remember that corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best.
- groestl 4y ago
  > corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best. Kind of like inheritance vs. composition.
- noiv 4y ago
  Of course corporations can and should be considered "legal persons". Under the law, corporations possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They can enter contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets, and pay taxes. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history-of-the-corporate-form-and-why-it-matters/ https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history...
  - infogulch 4y ago
    Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving? No, the Corp can just evaporate and reform under a new name if their assets were managed properly. We should have some compensation for this.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Until Texas executes a corporation they can't be considered people.
      - tbrownaw 4y ago
        Texas might not have, but didn't the web pki folks execute one of their CAs a while back?
drdrek 4y ago
Very interesting, thank you :)
29athrowaway 4y ago
Right now they are an ant death spiral.
photochemsyn 4y ago
If corporations are people - and if a single corporation is an 'independent entity separate from indidivuals that constitute it' - then there is only one logical classification that makes sense: if corporations are people, then they are also slaves. People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. If corporations are people, they are also owned entities, they can be traded and sold like slaves on an auction block in New Orleans were 200 years ago. This seems problematic from both legal and moral standpoints, doesn't it? One interesting solution would be to give each corporation its own AI mind that could argue for the corporation's interests and exercise free will. This would of course be complicated - the corporation might independently negotiate contracts with shareholders (who supply capital) and employees (who supply labor), rather than be entirely beholden to the executive board (which, in this scenario, would be reduced to an entirely advisory role, if not eliminated entirely). Another stipulation could be that the corporation, our independent intelligent AI entity, would always hold a majority ownership in itself, i.e. 51% of shares at least. Of course, this would also do away with holding corporations, shell corporations, and other forms of hidden ownership. Well... it's an interesting idea. Of course, the corporation was originally set up as a legal entity to shield investors from legal liability for their actions, comparable to organized crime setups where the Dons reap the majority of the profits but never get their hands dirty themselves.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. That's not quite the way I see it. To me, a corporation is an emergent intelligence that results from a system of smaller parts interacting with one another. Those parts are in fact shareholders, executives, employees, etc. In this sense, saying a corporate person is a slave to its employees is like saying we biological people are slaves to our cells and organs. I have no idea if that's true, but I think it's fun to think about the implications. It certainly brings into question one of the premises of your post; that people have free will.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate. In my experience this is a US phenomenon. I am a lawyer in a different common law jurisdiction where corporate personhood is pretty much uncontroversial. Everyone knows that companies can deal in and own property, can enter into contracts, can sue and be sued. There is no real public debate about it. It seems to be controversial in the US because of the Citizens United decision. I have to admit I don't fully understand the significance of the Citizens United decision. I get that it was based on the idea that corporations have the same rights as people under the constitution and that its effect was to increase the influence of money in politics. But if Citizens United held that it's illegal to restrict corporate spending on politics, presumably it must have already been illegal to restrict individuals' spending on politics, so presumably wealthy individuals could have spent their money on politics anyway (the only difference being that it's slightly less convenient when you can't use a corporation)? If my understanding is wrong I'd be grateful to be educated.
- none_to_remain 4y ago
  I don't think there is any serious controversy about corporate personhood in the US. Plenty of unserious, ignorant shouting, though
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    There is plenty of serious controversy about it. Should corporations be capable of holding religious conviction? Various evangelical Christian business owners and a number of conservative judges say "of course". Plenty of other serious, well-informed people say, in relatively quite voices, "absolutely not". Should a corporation organized for the purpose of making a profit be permitted to freely spend on political campaigns? SCOTUS thought yes, plenty of other people think not (even if they would allow non-profit corporations to do so). Plenty more like that.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    There are reasonable criticisms of Citizens United around limiting spending of corporate money directly related to politics. However, the lazy "corporate personhood" putdown is mostly silly. Obviously there are and have long been many ways in which corporations, trade associations, LLPs, etc. effectively act as a person for mostly good reasons. Barring criminal acts, you really don't want people suing a company for some action to instead identify all the individuals who were involved in some decision and go after them personally.
otikik 4y ago
The whole “corporations are people” nonsense has to stop.
ModernMech 4y ago
I've always maintained that if for-profit corporations are people, they are psychopaths. There's no mechanism for empathy in corporate structure, and indeed actual psychopaths are overrepresented in corporate boardrooms. Combined with the top-down nature of a corporation, where rules are made at the top and projected down onto employees that must comply or be cast out of the corporation, this makes corporations akin to totalitarian dictatorships, with the CEO in the role of Dear Leader. Often they even expect to be treated explicitly as such. I much prefer a more democratic system of work. I wouldn't tolerate a totalitarian government at the national level, why would I willingly subject myself to one at my workplace for 40+ hours a week? I want a vote on my role, who my boss is, and what rules I have to follow. Most importantly, I want the executives' votes to count just as much as any employee's, and I want them to be bound as well by the rules we all vote on. Turns out such entities are not as optimized at extracting wealth for shareholders, but they still do a decent job, and in my experience are far more aligned with community interests. In the future, I hope for more democratic corporate structures to become more popular, because I think the totalitarian profit-above-all model of a corporation has reached its limit.
- parthianshotgun 4y ago
  You clearly aren't aware of the rule of acquisition 211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
amelius 4y ago
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate. If a corporation is considered a person, then it's the biggest asshole I know.
- bumby 4y ago
  Maybe it’s just a useful abstraction that allows shareholders/executives to act like assholes with some moral veil. At the end of the day, it’s still natural persons making decisions.
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
This citation style is so distracting. Everyone should just use Chicago style [1] from now on. Map a subtle little number to a footnote that I can read at my leisure. [1] source-author, year; another-source-author, year; maybe my own ramblings; keep this verbose crap out of the text so I can better read/skim it.
- low_tech_punk 4y ago
  In a dreamland, all papers are digitized; everyone can use inline hyperlinks as citation; and all URLs are archived for stable public access.
  - tbrownaw 4y ago
    Some sites I've seen have a habit of following any outside link with an archive version of that same link (typically either the wayback machine or archive.today).
lifeisstillgood 4y ago
I think the original formation of a corporation as a means to conduct a joint enterprise is instructive - that the idea of a legal "person" is at odds with its infinite duration. Most if not all issues with corporations (institutional capture, etc) can be solved by putting a fixed lifetime on an organisation and returning the capital to investors after say two or three decades. I mean Google is coming up on it's thirtieth birthday, and many people might have other things to do with its cash.
- jagged-chisel 4y ago
  Such legal changes would also need to address selling the company and / or its assets lest someone scheme to get around the length of life limit.
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    I am not so sure - if you owned a million shares of IBM plc and suddenly the CEO moved all the assets into JBM plc and you owned a million shares of f'all it looks a lot like fraud. If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect. I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ... What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?
    - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
      Ok, I am probably going to go back on my original idea - it's highly likely that regulatory effort into ensuring open transparent competition will get better outcomes than end of life cut offs. Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
    - samus 4y ago
jgeada 4y ago
I find it particularly revealing that in these discussions about corporate personhood, the supporters go on and on about the rights of corporations but never about the responsibilities of corporations, and absolutely never about parity of consequences when there is wrongdoing
- deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
  Also, I find it interesting that the intersection of populist views never seems to create cognitive dissonance, where we have given over outsized political influence to entities which can have foreign ownership.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Like the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, I'll believe that corporations are people (or insects) when the state of Texas executes one.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thenerdhead 4y ago
A corporation has no responsibility to be morally good and is legally protected when being irresponsible. A person on the other hand is held to that same responsibility and prosecuted to the fullest when not. This is quite kafkaesque(the castle, the trial, the metamorphosis, etc) to build on-top of the paper’s title. True horror.

45 points by zdw 4y ago

The hum of all drones is larger than the sum of the clones. Synergistic buzzing, vague wording, public relations and human resources, all good for emptying your purses. Bzzt! Bzzt! :->

forevergreenyon 4y ago

> Whether the corporation should be considered a person My opinion is that "of course" they are; but that this also poses a challenge to our pre-corporate notion (conceptualization) of personhood. My chosen way to make sense of this is that corporations are a person of a type person that exists above the layer (or 'strata') in which typical individual humans are persons. I say 'above' because human individuals are one of the main 'ingredients' that come together to form corporate persons. the picture is how there are 'personhoods' of (at least) two distinct layers or strata: individual and collective persons. So the human individuals come together to form corporate individuals, a sort of meta-person. And I mean this very much in the sense of an egregore; the main difference being how earlier large bureaucracies would use papers and letters and such, but corporate bureaucracies are now fully digitized and using computers in networks.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
What is the use of such a definition that needs to be qualified so much? Its not a philosophical question, you don't need to decide it. Its just legal argument people came up with to try and give companies broad liberties to make more money. The article posted is about people's perceptions, of which it seems you are an outlier :).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
devmor 4y ago
By this logic, any group of people cooperating to do anything is also a person. That is utterly nonsensical - what is the point of defining a group of people as a person?
- forevergreenyon 4y ago
  yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too. but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
  - mypastself 4y ago
    That definition could also apply to nations, religious groups, sports teams, and many other types of organization, completely redefining the term “person”. What would be the purpose?
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      You're staring down a rabbit hole. If want answers to some of these questions, enjoy: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious-140721.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism Note: there are no real answers here, of course. I think the "purpose" though would be a less myopic view of what a person is. Notably, that there's no reason "person" and "homo sapien" should be synonymous. Once you admit that, then things start to get really fuzzy and we need a framework to get back to something that makes sense.
      - mypastself 4y ago
        Until we gain a proper understanding and definition of consciousness, the matter is almost purely linguistic. Redefining the term “person” could happen if there’s a critical mass for it, but I think it’s unlikely because it would almost certainly serve to confuse, rather than inform, at least in everyday communication. I haven’t looked deeply into the linked paper yet (although it does look interesting), but I’ve given the philosophical matter some amount of thought before. I can only be (fairly) certain of the existence of my own consciousness. There’s no reason to think I’m special in regards to other people, so it’s safe to assume they have it as well. Animals seem to exhibit similar behaviors, and since we have a shared evolutionary background, I’d include many animal species, too. Can’t say much for anything beyond that, regardless of how convincing, say, an AI’s words might sound. A photorealistic painting might also fool me, but I still wouldn’t attribute personhood to it afterwards. The Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” did slightly change my mind on this matter, though. If we ever construct an artificial intelligence sufficiently similar to a human, it might be wise to err on the side of caution with respect to ethical treatment.
photochemsyn 4y ago
I'm not sure 'meta-person' makes much sense. 'Meta-data' is data about data, but what's a meta-person? A person composed of other people? Would such a person-made-of-people have free will, or would its actions be constrained by majority groupthink outcomes? In the case of today's corporations, it's just the executive board (selected by the shareholders) that makes the decisions, with no input from the employees except in places like Germany where labor unions often have board seats. Meta-executive, perhaps? Interestingly, if corporations are people, do states in the USA with the death penalty have the right to dissolve corporations that commit murder? How would a corporation be incarcerated for a crime like bank robbery, what would a prison for corporations look like? It's hard to conclude that corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction whose true intent is to expand the liability protection for shareholders and protect internal corporate documents from legal discovery and so on.

rhaway84773 4y ago

Of course corporations shouldn’t be considered persons. They’re corporations. Now it’s possible there’s a complete intersection in the legal rules which apply to persons and corporations, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same type of entities. It’s useful to remember that corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best.

groestl 4y ago
> corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best. Kind of like inheritance vs. composition.
noiv 4y ago
Of course corporations can and should be considered "legal persons". Under the law, corporations possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They can enter contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets, and pay taxes. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history-of-the-corporate-form-and-why-it-matters/ https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history...
- infogulch 4y ago
  Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving? No, the Corp can just evaporate and reform under a new name if their assets were managed properly. We should have some compensation for this.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Until Texas executes a corporation they can't be considered people.
    - tbrownaw 4y ago
      Texas might not have, but didn't the web pki folks execute one of their CAs a while back?

drdrek 4y ago

Very interesting, thank you :)

29athrowaway 4y ago

Right now they are an ant death spiral.

photochemsyn 4y ago

If corporations are people - and if a single corporation is an 'independent entity separate from indidivuals that constitute it' - then there is only one logical classification that makes sense: if corporations are people, then they are also slaves. People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. If corporations are people, they are also owned entities, they can be traded and sold like slaves on an auction block in New Orleans were 200 years ago. This seems problematic from both legal and moral standpoints, doesn't it? One interesting solution would be to give each corporation its own AI mind that could argue for the corporation's interests and exercise free will. This would of course be complicated - the corporation might independently negotiate contracts with shareholders (who supply capital) and employees (who supply labor), rather than be entirely beholden to the executive board (which, in this scenario, would be reduced to an entirely advisory role, if not eliminated entirely). Another stipulation could be that the corporation, our independent intelligent AI entity, would always hold a majority ownership in itself, i.e. 51% of shares at least. Of course, this would also do away with holding corporations, shell corporations, and other forms of hidden ownership. Well... it's an interesting idea. Of course, the corporation was originally set up as a legal entity to shield investors from legal liability for their actions, comparable to organized crime setups where the Dons reap the majority of the profits but never get their hands dirty themselves.

ModernMech 4y ago
> People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. That's not quite the way I see it. To me, a corporation is an emergent intelligence that results from a system of smaller parts interacting with one another. Those parts are in fact shareholders, executives, employees, etc. In this sense, saying a corporate person is a slave to its employees is like saying we biological people are slaves to our cells and organs. I have no idea if that's true, but I think it's fun to think about the implications. It certainly brings into question one of the premises of your post; that people have free will.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

> Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate. In my experience this is a US phenomenon. I am a lawyer in a different common law jurisdiction where corporate personhood is pretty much uncontroversial. Everyone knows that companies can deal in and own property, can enter into contracts, can sue and be sued. There is no real public debate about it. It seems to be controversial in the US because of the Citizens United decision. I have to admit I don't fully understand the significance of the Citizens United decision. I get that it was based on the idea that corporations have the same rights as people under the constitution and that its effect was to increase the influence of money in politics. But if Citizens United held that it's illegal to restrict corporate spending on politics, presumably it must have already been illegal to restrict individuals' spending on politics, so presumably wealthy individuals could have spent their money on politics anyway (the only difference being that it's slightly less convenient when you can't use a corporation)? If my understanding is wrong I'd be grateful to be educated.

none_to_remain 4y ago
I don't think there is any serious controversy about corporate personhood in the US. Plenty of unserious, ignorant shouting, though
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  There is plenty of serious controversy about it. Should corporations be capable of holding religious conviction? Various evangelical Christian business owners and a number of conservative judges say "of course". Plenty of other serious, well-informed people say, in relatively quite voices, "absolutely not". Should a corporation organized for the purpose of making a profit be permitted to freely spend on political campaigns? SCOTUS thought yes, plenty of other people think not (even if they would allow non-profit corporations to do so). Plenty more like that.
- ghaff 4y ago
  There are reasonable criticisms of Citizens United around limiting spending of corporate money directly related to politics. However, the lazy "corporate personhood" putdown is mostly silly. Obviously there are and have long been many ways in which corporations, trade associations, LLPs, etc. effectively act as a person for mostly good reasons. Barring criminal acts, you really don't want people suing a company for some action to instead identify all the individuals who were involved in some decision and go after them personally.

otikik 4y ago

The whole “corporations are people” nonsense has to stop.

ModernMech 4y ago

I've always maintained that if for-profit corporations are people, they are psychopaths. There's no mechanism for empathy in corporate structure, and indeed actual psychopaths are overrepresented in corporate boardrooms. Combined with the top-down nature of a corporation, where rules are made at the top and projected down onto employees that must comply or be cast out of the corporation, this makes corporations akin to totalitarian dictatorships, with the CEO in the role of Dear Leader. Often they even expect to be treated explicitly as such. I much prefer a more democratic system of work. I wouldn't tolerate a totalitarian government at the national level, why would I willingly subject myself to one at my workplace for 40+ hours a week? I want a vote on my role, who my boss is, and what rules I have to follow. Most importantly, I want the executives' votes to count just as much as any employee's, and I want them to be bound as well by the rules we all vote on. Turns out such entities are not as optimized at extracting wealth for shareholders, but they still do a decent job, and in my experience are far more aligned with community interests. In the future, I hope for more democratic corporate structures to become more popular, because I think the totalitarian profit-above-all model of a corporation has reached its limit.

parthianshotgun 4y ago
You clearly aren't aware of the rule of acquisition 211: Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.

amelius 4y ago

> Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate. If a corporation is considered a person, then it's the biggest asshole I know.

bumby 4y ago
Maybe it’s just a useful abstraction that allows shareholders/executives to act like assholes with some moral veil. At the end of the day, it’s still natural persons making decisions.

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

This citation style is so distracting. Everyone should just use Chicago style [1] from now on. Map a subtle little number to a footnote that I can read at my leisure. [1] source-author, year; another-source-author, year; maybe my own ramblings; keep this verbose crap out of the text so I can better read/skim it.

low_tech_punk 4y ago
In a dreamland, all papers are digitized; everyone can use inline hyperlinks as citation; and all URLs are archived for stable public access.
- tbrownaw 4y ago
  Some sites I've seen have a habit of following any outside link with an archive version of that same link (typically either the wayback machine or archive.today).

lifeisstillgood 4y ago

I think the original formation of a corporation as a means to conduct a joint enterprise is instructive - that the idea of a legal "person" is at odds with its infinite duration. Most if not all issues with corporations (institutional capture, etc) can be solved by putting a fixed lifetime on an organisation and returning the capital to investors after say two or three decades. I mean Google is coming up on it's thirtieth birthday, and many people might have other things to do with its cash.

jagged-chisel 4y ago
Such legal changes would also need to address selling the company and / or its assets lest someone scheme to get around the length of life limit.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  I am not so sure - if you owned a million shares of IBM plc and suddenly the CEO moved all the assets into JBM plc and you owned a million shares of f'all it looks a lot like fraud. If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect. I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ... What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    Ok, I am probably going to go back on my original idea - it's highly likely that regulatory effort into ensuring open transparent competition will get better outcomes than end of life cut offs. Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
  - samus 4y ago

jgeada 4y ago

I find it particularly revealing that in these discussions about corporate personhood, the supporters go on and on about the rights of corporations but never about the responsibilities of corporations, and absolutely never about parity of consequences when there is wrongdoing

deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
Also, I find it interesting that the intersection of populist views never seems to create cognitive dissonance, where we have given over outsized political influence to entities which can have foreign ownership.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

Like the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, I'll believe that corporations are people (or insects) when the state of Texas executes one.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

thenerdhead 4y ago

A corporation has no responsibility to be morally good and is legally protected when being irresponsible. A person on the other hand is held to that same responsibility and prosecuted to the fullest when not. This is quite kafkaesque(the castle, the trial, the metamorphosis, etc) to build on-top of the paper’s title. True horror.