4 ms·

This then is the perfect historic opportunity to revist granting personhood to corporations. p.s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://e

This then is the perfect historic opportunity to revist granting personhood to corporations. p.s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Almost all such legal framings have been motivated by the legal difficulties of applying laws to organized groups of individuals. For example, entering into contracts is legally between two parties. Presumably, the sheer amount of legal reworking necessary to actually create and frame laws addressing legal situations involving groups of individuals as a single organized entity back when these precedents were being set outweighed objections. But today, specially with AI, the "it's too much work" excuse does not fly. We need laws that are specifically framed in consideration of requirements and practicalities of entities, not slowly parcel out the legal rights of people to entities. Now that machines may soon be able to employed as willful agencies, we are willy-nilly granting legal personhood to machines. https://thelawdictionary.org/juridical-person/ https://thelawdictionary.org/juridical-person/

counttheforks 4y ago
I never really understood this. Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty?
- ETH_start 4y ago
  It's much more limited than what its critics imagine. It's a legal doctrine to ensure shareholder's rights aren't violated. For example, shareholders having a right to Free Speech means you can't suppress that right when shareholders act through the corporate legal structure to utter speech.
- sleigh-bells 4y ago
  Corporate personhood means that you can own a piece of a company without being personally liable, because the corporation is its own legal entity. This is why people can start businesses without worrying about being in debt for the rest of their lives if it fails. After all, if the corporation isn't a separate legal entity but just a collection of investors, if the corporation wronged someone, the investors could be sued personally. Maybe the concept is taken too far in terms of political donations and free speech but no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. I don't think a modern economy would even be possible.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    > no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. What a dystopia that would be.
    - sleigh-bells 4y ago
      -sent from my iPhone
- spondyl 4y ago
  > Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty? In theory, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
- sclarisse 4y ago
  Corporations have rights because they are owned by humans and those humans have rights. Corporations are just a convenient way to do things together, like conduct a business and own property. Corporate personhood is just a legal abstraction to represent those peoples’ rights, a facade pattern that lets multi-person groups neatly fit in existing laws that might discuss individuals. Corporations like Citizens United can solicit donations from citizens who are fans and produce a pathetic hack-job movie about Hillary Clinton and pay to air it on cable TV, without the FEC saying “no,” because that’s an exercise of the free speech rights of citizens who are working together. Corporations cannot vote because there is no meaningful legal way for people to vote together. Corporations seldom need to be jailed because their crimes are actually committed by humans and you can send the humans to jail.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >Corporations have rights because they are owned by humans and those humans have rights. One does not really follow from another. Washing machines are also "owned by humans" but they don't get rights. >Corporations are just a convenient way to do things together, like conduct a business and own property. Corporate personhood is just a legal abstraction to represent those peoples’ rights, a facade pattern that lets multi-person groups neatly fit in existing laws that might discuss individuals. Doesn't really follow either. Why would it need to be "corporate personhood" and not just a "corporate law"? Why did "personhood" have to enter the picture?
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      As the foundation, the cornerstone, the most base part of said "Corporate law". Corporations do not exist without some humans behind them. There are no fully-autonomous corporations in corporate law (despite what ethereum would have you believe) . There are only groups of people. Those people, officers of corporations, impart the personhood - The Corporation is just an embodiment of the collective action of the officers.
      - coldtea 4y ago
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Arthur Andersen was basically executed.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    As was Silicon Valley Bank (though not it's parent corporation, SVB Financial).
- ftxbro 4y ago
  It's a legal term of art. The term 'natural person' means a human.
puzzledobserver 4y ago
What about limited liability? It seems to me to be an enormous concession to corporations and their shareholders, and which never seems to be questioned in popular consciousness.
- crabmusket 4y ago
  Do you see a connection between limited liability and AI, or are you going in the direction of "free gifts to corporations"? I'm trying to understand how limited liability interacts with AI and corporations.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    If people running corporations are personally responsible (with no "limited liability" protections) they can't just play fast and loose letting AI make decisions.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      That's between them and the people who choose to hire them (the shareholders) and lend them money.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        When they operate within a society, and their actions affect society, then it's up to everybody else too. Corporations and their shareholders should be constrained by the laws of society and operate to the benefit of society first and foremost, and by their profit-seeking second. If that profit seeking or other interests go against societies (e.g. destroying the environment, bribing politicians, selling products that hurt people, etc.), they should be curbed.

counttheforks 4y ago

I never really understood this. Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty?

ETH_start 4y ago
It's much more limited than what its critics imagine. It's a legal doctrine to ensure shareholder's rights aren't violated. For example, shareholders having a right to Free Speech means you can't suppress that right when shareholders act through the corporate legal structure to utter speech.
sleigh-bells 4y ago
Corporate personhood means that you can own a piece of a company without being personally liable, because the corporation is its own legal entity. This is why people can start businesses without worrying about being in debt for the rest of their lives if it fails. After all, if the corporation isn't a separate legal entity but just a collection of investors, if the corporation wronged someone, the investors could be sued personally. Maybe the concept is taken too far in terms of political donations and free speech but no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. I don't think a modern economy would even be possible.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  > no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. What a dystopia that would be.
  - sleigh-bells 4y ago
    -sent from my iPhone
spondyl 4y ago
> Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty? In theory, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution
sclarisse 4y ago
Corporations have rights because they are owned by humans and those humans have rights. Corporations are just a convenient way to do things together, like conduct a business and own property. Corporate personhood is just a legal abstraction to represent those peoples’ rights, a facade pattern that lets multi-person groups neatly fit in existing laws that might discuss individuals. Corporations like Citizens United can solicit donations from citizens who are fans and produce a pathetic hack-job movie about Hillary Clinton and pay to air it on cable TV, without the FEC saying “no,” because that’s an exercise of the free speech rights of citizens who are working together. Corporations cannot vote because there is no meaningful legal way for people to vote together. Corporations seldom need to be jailed because their crimes are actually committed by humans and you can send the humans to jail.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >Corporations have rights because they are owned by humans and those humans have rights. One does not really follow from another. Washing machines are also "owned by humans" but they don't get rights. >Corporations are just a convenient way to do things together, like conduct a business and own property. Corporate personhood is just a legal abstraction to represent those peoples’ rights, a facade pattern that lets multi-person groups neatly fit in existing laws that might discuss individuals. Doesn't really follow either. Why would it need to be "corporate personhood" and not just a "corporate law"? Why did "personhood" have to enter the picture?
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    As the foundation, the cornerstone, the most base part of said "Corporate law". Corporations do not exist without some humans behind them. There are no fully-autonomous corporations in corporate law (despite what ethereum would have you believe) . There are only groups of people. Those people, officers of corporations, impart the personhood - The Corporation is just an embodiment of the collective action of the officers.
    - coldtea 4y ago
HyperSane 4y ago
Arthur Andersen was basically executed.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  As was Silicon Valley Bank (though not it's parent corporation, SVB Financial).
ftxbro 4y ago
It's a legal term of art. The term 'natural person' means a human.

puzzledobserver 4y ago

What about limited liability? It seems to me to be an enormous concession to corporations and their shareholders, and which never seems to be questioned in popular consciousness.

crabmusket 4y ago
Do you see a connection between limited liability and AI, or are you going in the direction of "free gifts to corporations"? I'm trying to understand how limited liability interacts with AI and corporations.
- coldtea 4y ago
  If people running corporations are personally responsible (with no "limited liability" protections) they can't just play fast and loose letting AI make decisions.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    That's between them and the people who choose to hire them (the shareholders) and lend them money.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      When they operate within a society, and their actions affect society, then it's up to everybody else too. Corporations and their shareholders should be constrained by the laws of society and operate to the benefit of society first and foremost, and by their profit-seeking second. If that profit seeking or other interests go against societies (e.g. destroying the environment, bribing politicians, selling products that hurt people, etc.), they should be curbed.