3 ms·

oh, comeon. this is just responsibility laundering. individual natural persons are implementing every act of these artificial hyperagents, and there is precede

by 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.

by ruined 2y ago

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.