4 ms·

Corporate personhood isn't some reason invention, it's older than the United States. Blackstone talks about it.

jmull 3y ago
I think a lot of people understand the legal justification, but the question is whether it's right. Blackstone and other legal ancient history is hardly relevant though, since modern corporations bear little resemblance to companies of the past. The original purpose of the constitution was to protect the interests of the people from the tyranny of the government. And, of course, there's no reason people can't band together and pursue their interests as a group. Well, corporations are composed of people. So far, so good. However, publicly traded corporations are specifically designed to allow only a profit motive to be shared by the group. By design, shareholders do not have other shared interests and anyway the board and executives have a legal duty to the financial interests of the shareholders, not other shared interests. The people working at the company below the executives are constrained by them, of course. So a corporation specifically does not share the general interests of the individuals of which it is composed, except where it comes to money (also, that interest in money tends to be in the short term). To the extent we treat corporations as people with the protections of the constitution, the constitution now works for the (short term) financial interests of corporations. Not the original purpose. And probably not a very good idea for society at large. (However, with the money spigot wide open, it's very unlikely to change.)
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It seems like the problem here isn't corporate personhood, it's widely-held conglomerates whose owners are too diluted to express any coherent preferences outside of a desire to make more money. What you want is for smaller companies to make up a larger proportion of the economy.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    No, the problem is that corporate persons, having an intent which is specific, limited and legally divorced from the intent of its shareholders should not be able to inherit the individual rights of its shareholders, especially since it enjoys privileges individuals do not. In fact, even in US law, corporations do not have all of the rights human persons have. They specially have the right to free speech as it pertains to political finance. Corporations in the US still don't have the right to vote, they do not have general freedom of speech, specifically they have much weaker protections against compelled speech than people, they do not have fifth amendment protection against self incrimination, they do not have rights under the comity clause, they do not have freedom of religion, etc... Indeed, in no country in the world do corporations have the rights of their shareholders or individual rights in general, not even in the US. In the US, corporations only have very specific rights, and judicial fiat determines which ones it has and which ones it doesn't based purely on political expediency (and indeed the courts flip and flop on which rights they do have as the political reality changes).
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > should not be able to inherit the individual rights of its shareholders Why not? It seems like you should be making the argument the other way. Why is a company's owner exercising their freedom of religion through a corporation any different than their exercising it through a church building or an unincorporated gathering of people? What's really going on here is that the government is violating these rights when it's politically expedient, using corporate personhood as a fig leaf to excuse their violations. Notice that if you try and come up with arguments to excuse this, they'll tend to be something like "because it's a business" rather than "because it's a corporation" even though that would imply it should also apply to a sole proprietorship or general partnership where there is still a business but no limited liability. There is no apparent reason why having limited liability in particular should require the waiver of unrelated rights.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        The issue with corporations is the corporate veil. The corporate veil separates the rights and responsibilities of the corporation from the rights and responsibilities of the owner. If the owner tries to use a corporation in such a way that it is merely an extension of their own person, the corporation is then subject to losing the corporate veil. So why then, if the rights and responsibilities of the corporation are legally distinct, and the law enforces a separation of intent and personalities, should the right of the individual get through to the corporation? The answer is that it shouldn't. The entire point of the corporation is that the rights and responsibilities of the corporation are not the rights and responsibilities of their owners. There is no reason why any right at all of the owner should percolate to the corporation. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, and general associations do not have this separation. The rights and responsibilities are the same. So of course the rights of the owners should be available to their entity. There is nothing arbitrary here. It's perfectly sensible, it's how every other country in the world does it, and it's how it was intended in the US as well. On the contrary, the idea that there is no such separation for some rights but there is for others is bizarre.
  - jmull 3y ago
    > What you want is for smaller companies to make up a larger proportion of the economy. Well… we could upend the foundations of capitalism to make it more likely corporations would be responsible for the well-being of society and therefore make it OK to grant them personhood. Or we could simply not grant these things (that aren’t people) personhood. I think it’s pretty obvious which one makes more sense. Also, think carefully. The problem isn’t that the ownership of widely-held conglomerates is too diluted. It is that *by design* the only shared interest of the owners is the profitability of the company. This isn’t some unfortunate, unforeseen happenstance. It’s on purpose and enforced by law. Our corporate system is designed for and the efficient allocation of capital, not the creation of good citizenal entities. Let’s recognize what it is and act accordingly.
sudosysgen 3y ago
Legal personhood is not at issue here. The question is whether legal persons are entitled to all individual rights. This isn't true anywhere, not even the US, except in a very limited fashion that is politically useful.

I think a lot of people understand the legal justification, but the question is whether it's right. Blackstone and other legal ancient history is hardly relevant though, since modern corporations bear little resemblance to companies of the past. The original purpose of the constitution was to protect the interests of the people from the tyranny of the government. And, of course, there's no reason people can't band together and pursue their interests as a group. Well, corporations are composed of people. So far, so good. However, publicly traded corporations are specifically designed to allow only a profit motive to be shared by the group. By design, shareholders do not have other shared interests and anyway the board and executives have a legal duty to the financial interests of the shareholders, not other shared interests. The people working at the company below the executives are constrained by them, of course. So a corporation specifically does not share the general interests of the individuals of which it is composed, except where it comes to money (also, that interest in money tends to be in the short term). To the extent we treat corporations as people with the protections of the constitution, the constitution now works for the (short term) financial interests of corporations. Not the original purpose. And probably not a very good idea for society at large. (However, with the money spigot wide open, it's very unlikely to change.)

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It seems like the problem here isn't corporate personhood, it's widely-held conglomerates whose owners are too diluted to express any coherent preferences outside of a desire to make more money. What you want is for smaller companies to make up a larger proportion of the economy.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  No, the problem is that corporate persons, having an intent which is specific, limited and legally divorced from the intent of its shareholders should not be able to inherit the individual rights of its shareholders, especially since it enjoys privileges individuals do not. In fact, even in US law, corporations do not have all of the rights human persons have. They specially have the right to free speech as it pertains to political finance. Corporations in the US still don't have the right to vote, they do not have general freedom of speech, specifically they have much weaker protections against compelled speech than people, they do not have fifth amendment protection against self incrimination, they do not have rights under the comity clause, they do not have freedom of religion, etc... Indeed, in no country in the world do corporations have the rights of their shareholders or individual rights in general, not even in the US. In the US, corporations only have very specific rights, and judicial fiat determines which ones it has and which ones it doesn't based purely on political expediency (and indeed the courts flip and flop on which rights they do have as the political reality changes).
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > should not be able to inherit the individual rights of its shareholders Why not? It seems like you should be making the argument the other way. Why is a company's owner exercising their freedom of religion through a corporation any different than their exercising it through a church building or an unincorporated gathering of people? What's really going on here is that the government is violating these rights when it's politically expedient, using corporate personhood as a fig leaf to excuse their violations. Notice that if you try and come up with arguments to excuse this, they'll tend to be something like "because it's a business" rather than "because it's a corporation" even though that would imply it should also apply to a sole proprietorship or general partnership where there is still a business but no limited liability. There is no apparent reason why having limited liability in particular should require the waiver of unrelated rights.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      The issue with corporations is the corporate veil. The corporate veil separates the rights and responsibilities of the corporation from the rights and responsibilities of the owner. If the owner tries to use a corporation in such a way that it is merely an extension of their own person, the corporation is then subject to losing the corporate veil. So why then, if the rights and responsibilities of the corporation are legally distinct, and the law enforces a separation of intent and personalities, should the right of the individual get through to the corporation? The answer is that it shouldn't. The entire point of the corporation is that the rights and responsibilities of the corporation are not the rights and responsibilities of their owners. There is no reason why any right at all of the owner should percolate to the corporation. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, and general associations do not have this separation. The rights and responsibilities are the same. So of course the rights of the owners should be available to their entity. There is nothing arbitrary here. It's perfectly sensible, it's how every other country in the world does it, and it's how it was intended in the US as well. On the contrary, the idea that there is no such separation for some rights but there is for others is bizarre.
- jmull 3y ago
  > What you want is for smaller companies to make up a larger proportion of the economy. Well… we could upend the foundations of capitalism to make it more likely corporations would be responsible for the well-being of society and therefore make it OK to grant them personhood. Or we could simply not grant these things (that aren’t people) personhood. I think it’s pretty obvious which one makes more sense. Also, think carefully. The problem isn’t that the ownership of widely-held conglomerates is too diluted. It is that *by design* the only shared interest of the owners is the profitability of the company. This isn’t some unfortunate, unforeseen happenstance. It’s on purpose and enforced by law. Our corporate system is designed for and the efficient allocation of capital, not the creation of good citizenal entities. Let’s recognize what it is and act accordingly.

sudosysgen 3y ago

Legal personhood is not at issue here. The question is whether legal persons are entitled to all individual rights. This isn't true anywhere, not even the US, except in a very limited fashion that is politically useful.