3 ms·

If companies and persons are legally equivalent, I'm not sure why this is so perverse to you. There are many people in the world who do not have "purpose", thei

If companies and persons are legally equivalent, I'm not sure why this is so perverse to you. There are many people in the world who do not have "purpose", their personal philosophy is that they need/want to go out and "make a profit" so that they can survive. Are they perverse? A company isn't perfectly equivalent to a person, but does exist as a tool so people can accomplish goals. If two people have no calling, have no passions, and they start a company that expresses their personal goals of survival, what's wrong with that?

pixl97 3y ago
I'll believe that companies are the legal equivalent to persons when Texas executes one of them.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. Can you find a company that committed capitol murder? Or are they supposed to just execute one to test your theory, even if they're not guilty?
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. That's not true. Yes, corporate personhood exists to make things like forming a contract with or suing a corporation possible without a whole bunch of extra laws. But corporate personhood is not declaring corporations totally equivalent to natural persons. Corporations, for example, cannot vote or get married and probably can't adopt kids in any state.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      Not all natural persons can vote. Despite what Trump says, green card holders are disallowed such. The trouble, I think, is that some people want to keep corporations, but to somehow keep a leash on them so that they're only weaponized against their enemies. If you truly hated corporate personhood, instead, you might start talking about how corporations shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances. You can't keep a leash on them. They're effectively immortal, enormously rich beyond even billionaires, and have agendas. Like, I'm not exaggerating... they have agendas, and can play a long game. You'll never politically neutralize them as long as they exist, and unneutralized they will just continue to chip away until they've got their legal personhood back.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        >Not all natural persons can vote The ones that were created in the US over eighteen years ago and haven't been convicted of a felony can. The same is not true of corporations, because they're not legally equivalent to humans.
      - PeterisP 3y ago
        They don't have independent agendas - company owners have agendas, and they have the means and the rights to have the company implement whatever the owner's agenda is.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        No, they do have independent agendas. The ownership in an S corp is spread out over many thousands of people, and they are ineffective at exerting their own agenda onto the company. Even those who believe themselves effective at doing so. I think it was Charlie Stross who first said that corporations are actual AIs whose code executes on wetware of its employees. In the execution of that AI code, new agendas are developed that were never communicated or even imagined by anyone who could reasonably be called an owner.
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        No; basic eligibility criteria for Sub-S require ownership of the entity be limited to 100 owners.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259
perilunar 3y ago
> ... exist as a tool so people can accomplish goals. Precisely. Companies exist so that people can work together to accomplish goals that are difficult to accomplish separately. I'm suggesting that 'make money' should not be a sufficient goal. Companies are not a natural thing — we decide the laws that govern them.
- saltcured 3y ago
  Pooling resources via a corporation is one way that those with less individual wealth have a chance to compete against the very wealthy. Why should they have to meet a higher bar than such wealthy individuals?

pixl97 3y ago

I'll believe that companies are the legal equivalent to persons when Texas executes one of them.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. Can you find a company that committed capitol murder? Or are they supposed to just execute one to test your theory, even if they're not guilty?
- thfuran 3y ago
  >If they aren't the legal equivalent of persons, then they can't perform necessary activities like entering into contracts. That's not true. Yes, corporate personhood exists to make things like forming a contract with or suing a corporation possible without a whole bunch of extra laws. But corporate personhood is not declaring corporations totally equivalent to natural persons. Corporations, for example, cannot vote or get married and probably can't adopt kids in any state.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Not all natural persons can vote. Despite what Trump says, green card holders are disallowed such. The trouble, I think, is that some people want to keep corporations, but to somehow keep a leash on them so that they're only weaponized against their enemies. If you truly hated corporate personhood, instead, you might start talking about how corporations shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances. You can't keep a leash on them. They're effectively immortal, enormously rich beyond even billionaires, and have agendas. Like, I'm not exaggerating... they have agendas, and can play a long game. You'll never politically neutralize them as long as they exist, and unneutralized they will just continue to chip away until they've got their legal personhood back.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >Not all natural persons can vote The ones that were created in the US over eighteen years ago and haven't been convicted of a felony can. The same is not true of corporations, because they're not legally equivalent to humans.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      They don't have independent agendas - company owners have agendas, and they have the means and the rights to have the company implement whatever the owner's agenda is.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        No, they do have independent agendas. The ownership in an S corp is spread out over many thousands of people, and they are ineffective at exerting their own agenda onto the company. Even those who believe themselves effective at doing so. I think it was Charlie Stross who first said that corporations are actual AIs whose code executes on wetware of its employees. In the execution of that AI code, new agendas are developed that were never communicated or even imagined by anyone who could reasonably be called an owner.
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        No; basic eligibility criteria for Sub-S require ownership of the entity be limited to 100 owners.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259

perilunar 3y ago

> ... exist as a tool so people can accomplish goals. Precisely. Companies exist so that people can work together to accomplish goals that are difficult to accomplish separately. I'm suggesting that 'make money' should not be a sufficient goal. Companies are not a natural thing — we decide the laws that govern them.

saltcured 3y ago
Pooling resources via a corporation is one way that those with less individual wealth have a chance to compete against the very wealthy. Why should they have to meet a higher bar than such wealthy individuals?