4 ms·

This seems like a blatant abuse of the term person.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> seems like a blatant abuse of the term person Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons. It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective. Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created. (Murder is legal if you’re a DAO!)
- ruined 2y ago
  oh, comeon. this is just responsibility laundering. individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents, and there is precedent and reason for holding individuals accountable for individual actions.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > this is just responsibility laundering It's linguistics. Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour. (OP argued the use is abusive. That is wrong. The term wasn't manipulated. Our world got kinder faster than our English.) > individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents With responsibility comes power. (See: Tiberius.) If the CEO is entirely responsible for their corporation, then they are king. We've derived feudalism.
    - rvense 2y ago
      > Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour. Etymonline[0] cites phrases like "person corporate" as linguistic precedent this use of the term, but the meaning "individual, human being" goes back to 1200. Legal rights notwithstanding, I don't think you're at all correct if you are suggesting that there was ever a stage of daily English usage where the word would be used to refer equally to free citizens and corporations, but not to slaves. And I'd certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage that does not at all align with its everyday use. https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Personhood has obviously applied to humans across languages for millennia. I’m not arguing that usage doesn’t predate corporate personhood in English; I’m saying many common uses of person today post-date corporate personhood. Corporate personhood, and the referring of entities as persons, goes back to ancient Latin and multiple Indian languages for a reason: it’s a natural consequence of (a) collective rights and (b) polytheistic vesting, whereby “personhood” was understood in a broader context than even today [1]. (See: any spiritual practice that vests inanimate objects with a will and thus, in a sense or directly, personhood.) > certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage Agree. But that doesn’t make it wrong. When you look at why it has that specialist usage, suspending the use makes zero sense. (It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate its use.) [1] https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-british-academy/6s1/historical-role-of-corporation-in-society/ https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-briti...
        rvense 2y ago
        I have to admit I find it a little hard to understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me like you're mixing up a few things. In everyday English, the word 'person' primarily refers to an individual human. This is distinct from and (at least in my view of semantics) comes before philosophical and religious discussions about what it might mean to be human; and also distinct from discussions of the legal rights and duties that persons are given which might also be conferred upon non-humans. Even if these give rise to derived (polysemous) usages of the word person.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  I of course understand the necessity of representing collectives in a legal system, but given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system (say, punishing bad behavior with more than just a fine), it stands to reason they shouldn't be granted many of the benefits, either. Perhaps if we could have the board or stockholders stand in and accept the punishment personally it would make more sense, but we seem very averse to this as a society for some reason. As a result these parties are likely to have predominantely negative effects on society that relies on the concept of meaningful liability. > Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created. I don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly. I don't think a good reaction to this realization is to accept them as rational or reasonable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system Your problem isn't with corporate personhood. It's with our quasi-aristocracy. To that extent, complaining about legal entities is entirely a distraction. (Akin to how "corporate death penalties" distract from proportional fining. Red herrings littering the path.) > don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly Have you studied them? They're precedented in millenia, not tweets, for good reason.
- raffraffraff 2y ago
  Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to learn the language and compiler tools as part of their study, but anyone in the country would have access to them so that they could run their own tests and even settle minor legal disputes without having to pay lawyers. New laws that cause compiler errors don't get through, unless you can first unblock them with a refactor (which must also compile without errors). I think it's obvious that an attempt to encode the current statue book would fail miserably. You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) because I think we can all generally agree that killing is wrong generally. Ok, add a law "thou shake not kill". Oh, but what if someone's trying to kill you or your child? "Killing is wrong unless X is true". At the very least it would be an interesting exercise.
  - gxs 2y ago
    Very cool, I’ve had very similar thoughts in the past. Thinking about the law in this way actually made realize how the number of bugs there is actually low for what a clusterfuck it is.
    - rolandog 2y ago
      I think that corporations' leadership (and anyone that aided in the process) not being held criminally accountable, not being stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and not having to pay reparations for the damages they caused is a very serious bug. CVE 9.8/10.0 and all that.
      - 20after4 2y ago
        That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> seems like a blatant abuse of the term person Fictitious personhood is older than childhood personhood (or universal natural personhood, for that matter). To the degree we need a better term, it’s for natural persons. It’s a logical consequence of assembly, tracing back thousands of years to trade guilds and municipalities needing the ability to stand in court as a collective. Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created. (Murder is legal if you’re a DAO!)

ruined 2y ago
oh, comeon. this is just responsibility laundering. individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents, and there is precedent and reason for holding individuals accountable for individual actions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > this is just responsibility laundering It's linguistics. Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour. (OP argued the use is abusive. That is wrong. The term wasn't manipulated. Our world got kinder faster than our English.) > individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents With responsibility comes power. (See: Tiberius.) If the CEO is entirely responsible for their corporation, then they are king. We've derived feudalism.
  - rvense 2y ago
    > Corporations were people in English before many folks of darker skin colour. Etymonline[0] cites phrases like "person corporate" as linguistic precedent this use of the term, but the meaning "individual, human being" goes back to 1200. Legal rights notwithstanding, I don't think you're at all correct if you are suggesting that there was ever a stage of daily English usage where the word would be used to refer equally to free citizens and corporations, but not to slaves. And I'd certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage that does not at all align with its everyday use. https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=person
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Personhood has obviously applied to humans across languages for millennia. I’m not arguing that usage doesn’t predate corporate personhood in English; I’m saying many common uses of person today post-date corporate personhood. Corporate personhood, and the referring of entities as persons, goes back to ancient Latin and multiple Indian languages for a reason: it’s a natural consequence of (a) collective rights and (b) polytheistic vesting, whereby “personhood” was understood in a broader context than even today [1]. (See: any spiritual practice that vests inanimate objects with a will and thus, in a sense or directly, personhood.) > certainly argue that today, the idea that a corporation can be referred to as a 'person' is very much a specialists' usage Agree. But that doesn’t make it wrong. When you look at why it has that specialist usage, suspending the use makes zero sense. (It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate its use.) [1] https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-british-academy/6s1/historical-role-of-corporation-in-society/ https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/publishing/journal-briti...
      - rvense 2y ago
        I have to admit I find it a little hard to understand what you're trying to say. It seems to me like you're mixing up a few things. In everyday English, the word 'person' primarily refers to an individual human. This is distinct from and (at least in my view of semantics) comes before philosophical and religious discussions about what it might mean to be human; and also distinct from discussions of the legal rights and duties that persons are given which might also be conferred upon non-humans. Even if these give rise to derived (polysemous) usages of the word person.
darby_nine 2y ago
I of course understand the necessity of representing collectives in a legal system, but given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system (say, punishing bad behavior with more than just a fine), it stands to reason they shouldn't be granted many of the benefits, either. Perhaps if we could have the board or stockholders stand in and accept the punishment personally it would make more sense, but we seem very averse to this as a society for some reason. As a result these parties are likely to have predominantely negative effects on society that relies on the concept of meaningful liability. > Anyone who thinks we should end it should consider the consequences of requiring a find-and-replace exercise across our entire body of law, specifying which persons each statute and case applies to, and then prepare for an endless game of whack-a-mole as new categories of person are created. I don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly. I don't think a good reaction to this realization is to accept them as rational or reasonable.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > given that we cannot apply many legal concepts people rely on to trust such a system Your problem isn't with corporate personhood. It's with our quasi-aristocracy. To that extent, complaining about legal entities is entirely a distraction. (Akin to how "corporate death penalties" distract from proportional fining. Red herrings littering the path.) > don't have much hope for fixing our body of laws, frankly Have you studied them? They're precedented in millenia, not tweets, for good reason.
raffraffraff 2y ago
Strangely enough, we've ignored that "find-and-replace across the body of law" in the past. Even the new gender laws ignore existing laws. I sometimes wish that we had written a compiler for law. And a statically typed language designed for compiling policy (think Rego + Rust). Politicians and Law makers would have to test their new proposals in code before wasting anyone else's time on it. Lawyers would have to learn the language and compiler tools as part of their study, but anyone in the country would have access to them so that they could run their own tests and even settle minor legal disputes without having to pay lawyers. New laws that cause compiler errors don't get through, unless you can first unblock them with a refactor (which must also compile without errors). I think it's obvious that an attempt to encode the current statue book would fail miserably. You might have to start off an extremely simplistic set of rules (kinda like RocoCop's prime directives or Moses' 10 commandments) because I think we can all generally agree that killing is wrong generally. Ok, add a law "thou shake not kill". Oh, but what if someone's trying to kill you or your child? "Killing is wrong unless X is true". At the very least it would be an interesting exercise.
- gxs 2y ago
  Very cool, I’ve had very similar thoughts in the past. Thinking about the law in this way actually made realize how the number of bugs there is actually low for what a clusterfuck it is.
  - rolandog 2y ago
    I think that corporations' leadership (and anyone that aided in the process) not being held criminally accountable, not being stripped of their ill-gotten gains, and not having to pay reparations for the damages they caused is a very serious bug. CVE 9.8/10.0 and all that.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago