4 ms·

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 ab

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.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > 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? Because the two things have separate purposes. In one case the corporation will commonly have multiple owners or have employees other than the owner(s), and then an owner isn't fully in control of all of the corporation's actions and so shouldn't have personal responsibility for everything it does. In the other case the corporation wants to do something, which may not be the will of all of its owners and employees, but is the will of some of its owners or employees, who each individually have the right to it, so why shouldn't 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. So if a landlord who doesn't bother to incorporate because the building is their only asset of consequence, or temporarily transfers the building to a natural person in the event of a problematic tenant, then as a result they should be able to challenge landlord-tenant laws on the basis of freedom of religion or freedom of association? It seems like this is just an excuse and the reason you might want these laws has nothing to do with whether the business has incorporated or not.

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.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > 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? Because the two things have separate purposes. In one case the corporation will commonly have multiple owners or have employees other than the owner(s), and then an owner isn't fully in control of all of the corporation's actions and so shouldn't have personal responsibility for everything it does. In the other case the corporation wants to do something, which may not be the will of all of its owners and employees, but is the will of some of its owners or employees, who each individually have the right to it, so why shouldn't 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. So if a landlord who doesn't bother to incorporate because the building is their only asset of consequence, or temporarily transfers the building to a natural person in the event of a problematic tenant, then as a result they should be able to challenge landlord-tenant laws on the basis of freedom of religion or freedom of association? It seems like this is just an excuse and the reason you might want these laws has nothing to do with whether the business has incorporated or not.