3 ms·
If the corporation is just a proxy for the owners then why is this in court? Why aren't the humans just voting directly? It's well established that it's OK for
by wat10000 5mo ago
If the corporation is just a proxy for the owners then why is this in court? Why aren't the humans just voting directly? It's well established that it's OK for humans to vote.
- rayiner 5mo agoBecause the municipal charter in question confers to vote on the property owner. Which might technically be a corporation.
- wat10000 5mo agoThe question is, why did they bother to take it to court instead of just transferring ownership directly to their persons and then voting as humans? If corporations are just proxies then why bother with the lawyers and the court fees and the time?
- rayiner 5mo agoBecause they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?
- ceejayoz 5mo ago> Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners? Why shouldn't they? They're trading one benefit for another. The individual house owners don't get all the benefits of an LLC for similar reasons.
- rayiner 5mo ago> They're trading one benefit for another Why? What’s the logical basis for this idea that they should have to choose between these benefits?
- ceejayoz 5mo agoWhat's the logical basis for this idea that LLCs should have more benefits than an individual homeowner but give up nothing in return?
- EnergyAmy 5mo agoBecause corporations aren't people. Full stop.
- bit-anarchist 5mo agoTo the extent that is relevant to law and ethics, they are. Juridical people, as it goes.
- wat10000 5mo agoHold up. Law, OK, partially. But ethics? What ethical framework treats corporations as people?
- bit-anarchist 5mo agoThe one that backs the law, for instance. But, more broadly, corporations, specially ones ruled by shareholders/contracts, tend to have a will of their own, and "people" in ethics is more about will and desire than biology.
- wat10000 5mo agoWhat is "the one that backs the law"? I don't buy it at all. For example, it's generally considered to be unethical to kill a person aside from limited circumstances such as self defense. Killing a person because they're no longer useful to you is Right Out in every ethical framework I've ever heard of. Are you implying that dissolving a corporation is unethical?
- bit-anarchist 5mo ago> What is "the one that backs the law"? Depends on each jurisdiction. You'd have to look at which frameworks informed the laws that back each corporation. On the topic of corporate dissolution, I see less as killing and more as natural death. When a corp dissolves in accordance to its norms and general ethics (or the jurisdiction it's under, at least), that's equivalent to someone naturally dying. The constituents no longer wish to participate and follow the binding rules that define the corp to dissolve it, enacting its "will", if you will (pun intended). Something akin to murder would be a "hostile take over into a dissolution" situation, where a rogue member decides to unilaterally dissolve the corp in defiance of the other members despite having no legal justification, neither in the binding norms of the corp nor in their personal rights (although that's generally implied, as, in theory, no contract can violate this). I think we can agree that the latter case would indeed be unethical, if not illegal. Also, killing people strictly because they are not useful to you is covered by a "rule by might" ethics framework. Not one I agree with, but it exists.
- tiahura 5mo agobecause the city of Fenwick Island decided it wanted to set things up a different way, the ACLU challenged, and the judge said the city can it up how they want to.
- wat10000 5mo agoThe question is not what the law says (the headline is sufficient to understand that), but why people are doing this at all. If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved. There is some reason they don't do this. I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a proxy" line is 100% horseshit.
- rayiner 5mo ago> If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours. > There is some reason they don't do this I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the corporation is a proxy for people. Your real argument seems to be that you think people should have to choose between exercising their rights and having the protections of the corporate form.