5 ms·

What kind of mental model breakage made you put "a citizen" into a position of an unaccountable megacorporation in your analogy?

by izacus 4y ago

aardvarkr 4y ago
Unaccountable mega corporations are part of the commonwealth. Per citizens United they have rights too
- pkilgore 4y ago
  I can't really tell if this is sarcasm, but whatever rights corporations have in the UK certainly isn't established by a United States Supreme Court decision.
  - nixass 4y ago
    This forum is sometimes exact same as r/USdefaultism
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    You're right, the concept of legal personality was established by common law from before George Washington was even a twinkle in his father's eye. See: Case of Sutton's Hospital.
oh_sigh 4y ago
A corporation is just a group of people deciding to do something together according to certain rules. It wouldn't make sense that one person, with a lot of resources could do something within their rights, but a group of people with the same pooled resources couldn't do that thing.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Kant would like a word.
- izacus 4y ago
  It absolutely makes sense and we regularly treat synthetic organizations differently than individuals. It's the only way to build good society.
- danaris 4y ago
  You said yourself that corporations can only do what they do according to certain rules. Those rules are not the same as those for individuals. That is precisely what it means to say that one person, with a certain amount of resources, can do things that a group of people, with the same amount of pooled resources, is forbidden from doing.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    The rules generally exist describing how group decision making occurs, how liability is distributed, etc, not rules limiting the rights of what the group can do. Lord Templeman, law lord, in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham summarized the law thusly: > That report[Case of Sutton's Hospital], although largely incomprehensible in 1990, has been accepted as "express authority" that at common law it is an incident to a corporation to use its common seal for the purpose of binding itself to anything which a natural person could bind himself and to deal with its property as a natural person might deal with his own

What kind of mental model breakage made you put "a citizen" into a position of an unaccountable megacorporation in your analogy?

by izacus 4y ago

What kind of mental model breakage made you put "a citizen" into a position of an unaccountable megacorporation in your analogy?

aardvarkr 4y ago

Unaccountable mega corporations are part of the commonwealth. Per citizens United they have rights too

pkilgore 4y ago
I can't really tell if this is sarcasm, but whatever rights corporations have in the UK certainly isn't established by a United States Supreme Court decision.
- nixass 4y ago
  This forum is sometimes exact same as r/USdefaultism
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  You're right, the concept of legal personality was established by common law from before George Washington was even a twinkle in his father's eye. See: Case of Sutton's Hospital.

oh_sigh 4y ago

A corporation is just a group of people deciding to do something together according to certain rules. It wouldn't make sense that one person, with a lot of resources could do something within their rights, but a group of people with the same pooled resources couldn't do that thing.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Kant would like a word.
izacus 4y ago
It absolutely makes sense and we regularly treat synthetic organizations differently than individuals. It's the only way to build good society.
danaris 4y ago
You said yourself that corporations can only do what they do according to certain rules. Those rules are not the same as those for individuals. That is precisely what it means to say that one person, with a certain amount of resources, can do things that a group of people, with the same amount of pooled resources, is forbidden from doing.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  The rules generally exist describing how group decision making occurs, how liability is distributed, etc, not rules limiting the rights of what the group can do. Lord Templeman, law lord, in Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham summarized the law thusly: > That report[Case of Sutton's Hospital], although largely incomprehensible in 1990, has been accepted as "express authority" that at common law it is an incident to a corporation to use its common seal for the purpose of binding itself to anything which a natural person could bind himself and to deal with its property as a natural person might deal with his own