4 ms·

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

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?
  - goodluckchuck 4y ago
    Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving? - their members and employee can be incarcerated, - they can be enjoined / barred from conducting x, y, z activities, - they can be executed / dissolved, - they are subject to civil asset forfeiture if their assets were used in a crime.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > their members and employee can be incarcerated, Next time I commit a crime, I'll see if the prosecutors will settle for incarcerating some of my gut fauna.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Can corporations be owned, or is that tantamount to slavery?
      - simonh 4y ago
        Corporations are not natural persons, so it’s not an issue.
    - akomtu 4y ago
      We don't imprison just the robber's hand: it's always the entire robber. Try paying taxes like a corporation would - 20% on profits after expenses - and see if the judge buys your argument that you're a corporation.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Corporate law is that compensation. Originally, corporate charters were only granted to organizations that proved their worth, and could revoked if they failed to uphold it. When a corporation commits a crime, the managers and employees are responsible. Now, does law enforcement enforce the law? No, and there the problem.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Except that it patently does. Often. Corporations are fined, barred from various activities, have assets seized and members of them get sent to jail for criminal activity.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Small correction: typically it is not the members of a corporation who serve jail time associated with the corporation's criminal activity, but employees. To the extent that these two groups do sometimes overlap due to stock-based compensation schemes, your point is true. However, the corollary, which is that we generally do NOT hold the members of a corporation guilty for the acts of a corporation, remains the somewhat more potent observation.
        simonh 4y ago
        We don’t hold them responsible for the actions of the corporation. We hold them responsible for their actions. For example the VW exec jailed over the diesel emissions scandal, and the former CEO has been charged with giving false testimony.
safety1st 4y ago
Before anyone debates any position relative to the statement that "corporations are people," they should read the Wikipedia article on legal personhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person It would immediately improve the quality of any discussion on the matter. This is a legal term. In law there are natural persons (humans) and juridicial persons (entities which can do some of the things which persons do, like own property, but not all of them). So yes. Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. No need to point that out. You don't have to pass the bar to know it. There is an interesting discussion to be had for sure about what rights we should extend to a juridicial person, and what rights we shouldn't. Society wouldn't function if we didn't have them at all. But it doesn't follow that they should be as similar to a natural person as possible. They are conceived basically as a practical shorthand for dealing with a group of people who want to jointly own property, conduct business, incur debts, and so on. A world without this collaboration would end up with... weird ultra-mighty barons doing that and personally employing thousands? Who knows. No one sensible wants to treat them as natural persons. Arguments that they should gain rights just because "they're people" are specious. I just think the whole discussion is elevated if we talk about natural persons vs. juridicial/juristic persons.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. Not everyone knows that is true *legally" The bulk of public debate is ignorant wailing motivated by a false belief that the law treats corporations as natural persons.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Indeed that’s the message the paper conveys. Most people have no real idea how the law works on this, what the distinctions are, or why. Reading the comments here, many HN commenters seem to have no clue whatsoever what the actual legal facts or issues are either. They just have a vague impression and form opinions contextually on that basis. However anyone actually deciding these things should doo so on the basis of an actual understanding of the real position in law and the consequences of changing it.

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?
- goodluckchuck 4y ago
  Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving? - their members and employee can be incarcerated, - they can be enjoined / barred from conducting x, y, z activities, - they can be executed / dissolved, - they are subject to civil asset forfeiture if their assets were used in a crime.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > their members and employee can be incarcerated, Next time I commit a crime, I'll see if the prosecutors will settle for incarcerating some of my gut fauna.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Can corporations be owned, or is that tantamount to slavery?
    - simonh 4y ago
      Corporations are not natural persons, so it’s not an issue.
  - akomtu 4y ago
    We don't imprison just the robber's hand: it's always the entire robber. Try paying taxes like a corporation would - 20% on profits after expenses - and see if the judge buys your argument that you're a corporation.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Corporate law is that compensation. Originally, corporate charters were only granted to organizations that proved their worth, and could revoked if they failed to uphold it. When a corporation commits a crime, the managers and employees are responsible. Now, does law enforcement enforce the law? No, and there the problem.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Except that it patently does. Often. Corporations are fined, barred from various activities, have assets seized and members of them get sent to jail for criminal activity.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Small correction: typically it is not the members of a corporation who serve jail time associated with the corporation's criminal activity, but employees. To the extent that these two groups do sometimes overlap due to stock-based compensation schemes, your point is true. However, the corollary, which is that we generally do NOT hold the members of a corporation guilty for the acts of a corporation, remains the somewhat more potent observation.
      - simonh 4y ago
        We don’t hold them responsible for the actions of the corporation. We hold them responsible for their actions. For example the VW exec jailed over the diesel emissions scandal, and the former CEO has been charged with giving false testimony.

safety1st 4y ago

Before anyone debates any position relative to the statement that "corporations are people," they should read the Wikipedia article on legal personhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person It would immediately improve the quality of any discussion on the matter. This is a legal term. In law there are natural persons (humans) and juridicial persons (entities which can do some of the things which persons do, like own property, but not all of them). So yes. Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. No need to point that out. You don't have to pass the bar to know it. There is an interesting discussion to be had for sure about what rights we should extend to a juridicial person, and what rights we shouldn't. Society wouldn't function if we didn't have them at all. But it doesn't follow that they should be as similar to a natural person as possible. They are conceived basically as a practical shorthand for dealing with a group of people who want to jointly own property, conduct business, incur debts, and so on. A world without this collaboration would end up with... weird ultra-mighty barons doing that and personally employing thousands? Who knows. No one sensible wants to treat them as natural persons. Arguments that they should gain rights just because "they're people" are specious. I just think the whole discussion is elevated if we talk about natural persons vs. juridicial/juristic persons.

hgsgm 4y ago
> Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. Not everyone knows that is true *legally" The bulk of public debate is ignorant wailing motivated by a false belief that the law treats corporations as natural persons.
- simonh 4y ago
  Indeed that’s the message the paper conveys. Most people have no real idea how the law works on this, what the distinctions are, or why. Reading the comments here, many HN commenters seem to have no clue whatsoever what the actual legal facts or issues are either. They just have a vague impression and form opinions contextually on that basis. However anyone actually deciding these things should doo so on the basis of an actual understanding of the real position in law and the consequences of changing it.