3 ms·

Before anyone debates any position relative to the statement that "corporations are people," they should read the Wikipedia article on legal personhood: https:/

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.
analog31 4y ago
>>>> 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. In my view, that's called a partnership. The defining entitlement for a corporation is limitation of liability for shareholders. If you own stock in Chrysler Corporation, and they can't pay their debts, their creditors can't come to your house and auction off your belongings. It's a transfer of risk from investors to creditors. Another way of looking at it, is that there's an artificial price floor of zero on a share of Chrysler stock. This is not true for a sole proprietorship or general partnership. And natural people have different rules for when they can't pay their debts, thanks to bankruptcy law. Society grants this entitlement because we expect to receive a share of the benefits, at the very least in the form of higher overall prosperity. I have a strong hunch that without liability limitation, it would not be possible to raise capital for great ventures that make things like steel, airplanes, telecommunications, or computer chips. The typical "large" business would be something like a small factory or retail store.
- elcritch 4y ago
  Most European bankruptcy laws still require individuals to repay their debts. There’s a lot of research indicating that this reduces entrepreneurship and economic prosperity. That’d agree with your hunch I think.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Indeed, this situation could be analogous to the fear of medical bankruptcy in the US, which is also said to stifle entrepreneurship.
- samus 4y ago
  Even the absence of bankruptcy laws wouldn't help to reduce the risk of lending to a private person. A private person is only of limited economic value and can realistically not be expected to ever be able to repay the possibly astronomic debts that corporations can accrue.
samus 4y ago
It's really hard to imagine what a world without corporate personhood would look like. Legal structures resembling corporate personhood have existed since ancient times. This is because corporate personhood is an emergent economic phenomenon. It's simply a natural activity for persons to pool together their resources and act for a common purpose. Legal measures to make forming and operating as a group easier and more reliable would invariably end up creating something very similar to a corporation.

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.

analog31 4y ago

>>>> 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. In my view, that's called a partnership. The defining entitlement for a corporation is limitation of liability for shareholders. If you own stock in Chrysler Corporation, and they can't pay their debts, their creditors can't come to your house and auction off your belongings. It's a transfer of risk from investors to creditors. Another way of looking at it, is that there's an artificial price floor of zero on a share of Chrysler stock. This is not true for a sole proprietorship or general partnership. And natural people have different rules for when they can't pay their debts, thanks to bankruptcy law. Society grants this entitlement because we expect to receive a share of the benefits, at the very least in the form of higher overall prosperity. I have a strong hunch that without liability limitation, it would not be possible to raise capital for great ventures that make things like steel, airplanes, telecommunications, or computer chips. The typical "large" business would be something like a small factory or retail store.

elcritch 4y ago
Most European bankruptcy laws still require individuals to repay their debts. There’s a lot of research indicating that this reduces entrepreneurship and economic prosperity. That’d agree with your hunch I think.
- analog31 4y ago
  Indeed, this situation could be analogous to the fear of medical bankruptcy in the US, which is also said to stifle entrepreneurship.
samus 4y ago
Even the absence of bankruptcy laws wouldn't help to reduce the risk of lending to a private person. A private person is only of limited economic value and can realistically not be expected to ever be able to repay the possibly astronomic debts that corporations can accrue.

samus 4y ago

It's really hard to imagine what a world without corporate personhood would look like. Legal structures resembling corporate personhood have existed since ancient times. This is because corporate personhood is an emergent economic phenomenon. It's simply a natural activity for persons to pool together their resources and act for a common purpose. Legal measures to make forming and operating as a group easier and more reliable would invariably end up creating something very similar to a corporation.