5 ms·

Companies are persons, except they are not. They cannot die. They cannot go to prison. This concept of a moral person is a totally unfair advantage that they

Companies are persons, except they are not. They cannot die. They cannot go to prison. This concept of a moral person is a totally unfair advantage that they exploit again and again.

quonn 2y ago
I hear this claim a lot but is it really true? Corporations in most countries are „legal persons“ in the sense that they can act like a person. This is what limited liability is all about. In fact the very name „incorporation“ comes from giving a sort of „body“ to an entity that otherwise doesn‘t have one in order to shield the owners from liability as it should be. I do not think that a corporation is considered to be a person beyond that. It‘s merely a way to establish limited liability for shareholders which requires a mechanism for the corporation to sign contracts without an owner signing on it‘s behalf.
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  They can make investments, sue, go bankrupt, have bank accounts, like a person, in their own name instead of the owner.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    Can you explain why that matters? Yes a company can have a bank account. A company also has a name, like a person. An age, like a person. But what does that matter?
    - oersted 2y ago
      Certain laws apply to any person, which includes companies. A company can own things like you own things, and has similar protections. A company is accountable to its promises (contracts, fraud...), like you would be, although punishments might be different. It's like a union type: `type Person = Human | Company`. Or like inheritance: `class Human(Person)`, `class Company(Person)`. Or a typeclass/trait/interface... It allows you to reuse many laws for both humans and companies, without having to specify them or define special cases every time it is mentioned.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Sorry, again I don't understand why this matters.
        oersted 2y ago
        I think the point of OP was that in many ways companies have many of the same rights and privileges as individuals, but cannot be punished in the same ways.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        I don't really understand that as a point, though. What would punishing a company look like? Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? We can't punish countries either, even though they can also do these things. We can only punish people. So what?
        BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        Actually, it's the same point. We are currently trying to punish entities (with fines), and it's ineffective. We should move back to punishing people more, and moving back the responsibility to people, instead of pretending companies are people, and therefore responsible.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        But it's such a strange angle. Should we stop companies having bank accounts in order to do that? Who cares if they have a bank account?
        BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        Quite the opposite, since they have bank accounts, let's: - Make them more liable. - Make the people behind them more liable. - Give companies limitations. What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? Right now there is way too much power and shielding at the same time.
    - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
      We moved the power from the human to something we said is "human enough" to have them. But this thing is a concept, it doesn't exist. It can't die. It can change forms until it doesn't pay taxes. It can't experience pain or go to prison. Basically, we gave the power to the company without the responsibilities to the humans behind it because there is less consequences, less skin in the game.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Sorry - we moved what power?
        BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc. Before that, companies had to have everything attached to a human, not the company. So the human was responsible. You are so used to it that you think it's normal, but it's not. It's a concept we have created: that companies can act in their own name, like they are actually something concrete. But when we did that, we failed to give companies expiration date, something like inheritance tax, the equivalent of prison and so forth. Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences. In fact, it's sometimes in the title: limited liability company. It's by design. And of course, it allowed humans to do a lot of things without risking to lose all their life if they failed. But we went to far and now, we have companies that can enjoy all those benefits but with much less limitations than the humans counterpart. It makes them too powerful.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc. I don't think companies can sign contracts. What is the power of having a bank account and moving funds around? It's still people deciding to do this, and doing it, just under a group name. What power? > Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences People are still doing it. You seem to have totally mis-framed this. If you say "people can get away with doing things inside a company" you'd have a point, perhaps, but you're talking as though companies are sentient.
oersted 2y ago
Modern companies are a lot like we expect AGIs to be. It's an interesting thought that I keep coming across, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with it. In a sense, companies are super-human intelligent autonomous beings, with much more power to act on the world than any individual. We are able to partially control them within a complex incentive and enforcement structure, but it is difficult to fully align them with what society needs. It's good news in a sense, we can control AGIs with similar systems, they have the same resource constraints as any other entity if they want to have an impact in the real world.

Companies are persons, except they are not. They cannot die. They cannot go to prison. This concept of a moral person is a totally unfair advantage that they exploit again and again.

quonn 2y ago

I hear this claim a lot but is it really true? Corporations in most countries are „legal persons“ in the sense that they can act like a person. This is what limited liability is all about. In fact the very name „incorporation“ comes from giving a sort of „body“ to an entity that otherwise doesn‘t have one in order to shield the owners from liability as it should be. I do not think that a corporation is considered to be a person beyond that. It‘s merely a way to establish limited liability for shareholders which requires a mechanism for the corporation to sign contracts without an owner signing on it‘s behalf.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
They can make investments, sue, go bankrupt, have bank accounts, like a person, in their own name instead of the owner.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Can you explain why that matters? Yes a company can have a bank account. A company also has a name, like a person. An age, like a person. But what does that matter?
  - oersted 2y ago
    Certain laws apply to any person, which includes companies. A company can own things like you own things, and has similar protections. A company is accountable to its promises (contracts, fraud...), like you would be, although punishments might be different. It's like a union type: `type Person = Human | Company`. Or like inheritance: `class Human(Person)`, `class Company(Person)`. Or a typeclass/trait/interface... It allows you to reuse many laws for both humans and companies, without having to specify them or define special cases every time it is mentioned.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Sorry, again I don't understand why this matters.
      - oersted 2y ago
        I think the point of OP was that in many ways companies have many of the same rights and privileges as individuals, but cannot be punished in the same ways.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        I don't really understand that as a point, though. What would punishing a company look like? Why wouldn't we want to figure out how to punish (or hold accountable) individuals, instead of focusing on the fact that we can't punish legal entities? We can't punish countries either, even though they can also do these things. We can only punish people. So what?
        BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        Actually, it's the same point. We are currently trying to punish entities (with fines), and it's ineffective. We should move back to punishing people more, and moving back the responsibility to people, instead of pretending companies are people, and therefore responsible.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        But it's such a strange angle. Should we stop companies having bank accounts in order to do that? Who cares if they have a bank account?
        BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        Quite the opposite, since they have bank accounts, let's: - Make them more liable. - Make the people behind them more liable. - Give companies limitations. What would be the equivalent of jail for a company ? Unable to sale for x years ? How long a company should be able to exist ? Right now there is way too much power and shielding at the same time.
  - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
    We moved the power from the human to something we said is "human enough" to have them. But this thing is a concept, it doesn't exist. It can't die. It can change forms until it doesn't pay taxes. It can't experience pain or go to prison. Basically, we gave the power to the company without the responsibilities to the humans behind it because there is less consequences, less skin in the game.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Sorry - we moved what power?
      - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
        The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc. Before that, companies had to have everything attached to a human, not the company. So the human was responsible. You are so used to it that you think it's normal, but it's not. It's a concept we have created: that companies can act in their own name, like they are actually something concrete. But when we did that, we failed to give companies expiration date, something like inheritance tax, the equivalent of prison and so forth. Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences. In fact, it's sometimes in the title: limited liability company. It's by design. And of course, it allowed humans to do a lot of things without risking to lose all their life if they failed. But we went to far and now, we have companies that can enjoy all those benefits but with much less limitations than the humans counterpart. It makes them too powerful.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > The power of having a bank account, of moving funds around, of signing contracts, etc. I don't think companies can sign contracts. What is the power of having a bank account and moving funds around? It's still people deciding to do this, and doing it, just under a group name. What power? > Something that doesn't exist, a concept, enjoy many things a concrete human can do, but won't pay nearly the same consequences People are still doing it. You seem to have totally mis-framed this. If you say "people can get away with doing things inside a company" you'd have a point, perhaps, but you're talking as though companies are sentient.

oersted 2y ago

Modern companies are a lot like we expect AGIs to be. It's an interesting thought that I keep coming across, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with it. In a sense, companies are super-human intelligent autonomous beings, with much more power to act on the world than any individual. We are able to partially control them within a complex incentive and enforcement structure, but it is difficult to fully align them with what society needs. It's good news in a sense, we can control AGIs with similar systems, they have the same resource constraints as any other entity if they want to have an impact in the real world.