4 ms·

You'd think of all the ideas introduced, the money-making ones would be the first. Why haven't algorithmically-maintained corporate swarms destroyed liability

by mapt 2y ago

You'd think of all the ideas introduced, the money-making ones would be the first. Why haven't algorithmically-maintained corporate swarms destroyed liability law yet? Did it happen and I didn't notice, or was it simply judged unnecessary since we extended the concept of limited liability so far with corporate actors? If you haven't delved, this author's entire bibliography is fantastic.

tivert 2y ago
> Why haven't algorithmically-maintained corporate swarms destroyed liability law yet? I haven't read the book, so what exactly are you talking about? Is it swarms of shell companies? I think software engineers often confuse the legal system for a computer program, and become enamored with "clever hacks" to defeat it, but forget that programs (and the legal system) can be patched.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Precisely. And they have the shortcut of violence; while in theory someone could do something like "create shell companies faster than the legal process can crack them open, thereby hiding one's activities behind an infinite regression of spheres," in practice that's fraud and if the authorities glom that your meta-project is that, they can throw you in jail (or your proxies in jail) until you're willing to divulge what's actually going on. A truncheon and jail cell are the ultimate debugger.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > while in theory someone could do something like "create shell companies faster than the legal process can crack them open I don't think that even works in theory. It's not like a shell company is a computer process that totally ceases to exist after it terminates and can longer be investigated: there's all kinds of logging and record keeping for a real life company. The authorities can start investigating a defunct shell company and trace it back to its origin (which then will reveal the whole "infinite regression of spheres").

by mapt 2y ago

tivert 2y ago

> Why haven't algorithmically-maintained corporate swarms destroyed liability law yet? I haven't read the book, so what exactly are you talking about? Is it swarms of shell companies? I think software engineers often confuse the legal system for a computer program, and become enamored with "clever hacks" to defeat it, but forget that programs (and the legal system) can be patched.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Precisely. And they have the shortcut of violence; while in theory someone could do something like "create shell companies faster than the legal process can crack them open, thereby hiding one's activities behind an infinite regression of spheres," in practice that's fraud and if the authorities glom that your meta-project is that, they can throw you in jail (or your proxies in jail) until you're willing to divulge what's actually going on. A truncheon and jail cell are the ultimate debugger.
- tivert 2y ago
  > while in theory someone could do something like "create shell companies faster than the legal process can crack them open I don't think that even works in theory. It's not like a shell company is a computer process that totally ceases to exist after it terminates and can longer be investigated: there's all kinds of logging and record keeping for a real life company. The authorities can start investigating a defunct shell company and trace it back to its origin (which then will reveal the whole "infinite regression of spheres").