6 ms·

America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as peo

America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. But it also applies the same restrictions and punishments as people without factoring in the underlying advantages a company has when breaking the law for profit. 1. Perpetual existence means breaking the law is a short term problem that is well worth the long term benefit — companies essentially live for ever and out live many of the consequences of their actions 2. They can’t be physically jailed and are rarely punished with equivalent restrictions. There is no ankle bracelet for bad companies. So the punishments are inadequate to serve as a deterrent, 3. Fines are rarely of a scale that threatens existence so they become just another cost of business that can be financially modeled 4. The decision makers almost never suffer the consequences of their companies actions. It’s so rare at this point for executives to face personal responsibility in terms of fines, or jail time that there is a absolute incentive to ignore laws in pursuit of short term earnings 5. There is a two tier system, large companies can abuse the legal process by outspending prosecution from the government or harmed parties. Law suits drag on so long that it’s essential a get out of jail free card for companies that are large enough. 6. It’s pretty clear the government wants Facebook to spy on and persuade the population of the world. So this behavior is a “national defense” asset and any harm is justified as being necessary for the preservation of that asset. I could go on but until most of these are fixed, expect Facebook in particular to evade any meaningful punishment.

duped 2mo ago
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media
- blooalien 2mo ago
  > it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights > > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means. > Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
  - digitaltrees 1mo ago
    Except that you’re wrong: most of the articles shows broad overlap with ver few divergent rights. More importantly none of the divergence undermines my argument that the US has extended rights too far and has not extended punishment far enough.
- digitaltrees 1mo ago
  I am a lawyer not some random facebook troll. There are minor differences but my argument is clear. The asymmetric advantage accrue to the benefit of companies because their are perpetual and abstract so not punished in anything equal to human persons.
Aurornis 2mo ago
> America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. Corporate personhood does not mean a company have all the same legal rights as a person. Did you notice that companies can’t vote in elections or plead the fifth amendment like a person can? Corporations only get some rights. Corporate personhood is common across the globe. If you thought it was an American idea that’s completely incorrect. It is a funny example of the kind of American exceptionalism where people assume that America is an exception in having some property they dislike when in fact it’s common everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- deaux 2mo ago
  The inability to personally jail megacorp CEOs who cause untold amounts of societal damage is not common "everywhere" ("many places", maybe). And that is the actual thing the person you're responding to cares about, and rightly so.
  - Aurornis 2mo ago
    The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate. The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX. You may also have your personal list of “societal damages” that you believe should result in people being jailed despite not having committed crimes, but I guarantee your list doesn’t match everyone else’s list. You wouldn’t be happy when the list of “societal damages” started extending to things like using a VPN or trying to be anonymous on the internet, but for many people who get to government positions it most definitely would!
    - upboundspiral 2mo ago
      Executives mostly get jailed when there is large media attention + the executive was foolish enough to leave evidence pointing straight at them. For every case where an executive is jailed, there are 100 other cases where they aren't. And that is just in the overt "breaking the law cases". Even more incredible damage has been in us losing the laws that protect us in the first place. For nigh on 40 years thanks to neoliberal economists influencing policy we have been relaxing corporate and monetary regulation. This has already provided great gifts to the world, such as enabling the fraud that led to the 2008 housing crisis (who was jailed again?). When as a country you decide that punishing bad corporate behaviour is a non starter, you get the predictable consequences of increasing, not decreasing bad corporate behaviour.
smsm42 2mo ago
This all is based on false premise - corporation being a "legal person" does not mean they have same rights as people. You can liquidate a corporation and if is not murder. You can boycott a corporation and it's not illegal discrimination. Corporations can not vote or be elected into office. Etc, etc. It's just a technical term and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Stop perpetuating this nonsense.

duped 2mo ago

> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media

blooalien 2mo ago
> it defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights > > It absolutely does not but people keep repeating this on social media Funny how some folks can comment here on the world's biggest library and communications system but they can't take a minute to search out and read some actual details on the thing they're commenting about first. For example, Wikipedia's Corporate Personhood article [1] took me less than 5 seconds to find (including the time it took to open a web browser to my favorite search engine), and another two seconds to read enough to find that the very first sentence says some (not all) legal rights... The rest of the article has all the details anyone needs to understand what that first sentence actually means. > Notion that corporations can have some legal rights, responsibilities and accountability (emphasis mine) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- digitaltrees 1mo ago
  Except that you’re wrong: most of the articles shows broad overlap with ver few divergent rights. More importantly none of the divergence undermines my argument that the US has extended rights too far and has not extended punishment far enough.
digitaltrees 1mo ago
I am a lawyer not some random facebook troll. There are minor differences but my argument is clear. The asymmetric advantage accrue to the benefit of companies because their are perpetual and abstract so not punished in anything equal to human persons.

Aurornis 2mo ago

> America has a profound problem. It defines companies as legal persons with all the same rights. Corporate personhood does not mean a company have all the same legal rights as a person. Did you notice that companies can’t vote in elections or plead the fifth amendment like a person can? Corporations only get some rights. Corporate personhood is common across the globe. If you thought it was an American idea that’s completely incorrect. It is a funny example of the kind of American exceptionalism where people assume that America is an exception in having some property they dislike when in fact it’s common everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

deaux 2mo ago
The inability to personally jail megacorp CEOs who cause untold amounts of societal damage is not common "everywhere" ("many places", maybe). And that is the actual thing the person you're responding to cares about, and rightly so.
- Aurornis 2mo ago
  The countries who jail CEOs who due “societal damage” as a fuzzy cultural concept, as opposed to jailing CEOs according to the law, are not legal systems you want to imitate. The US does jail CEOs who commit crimes. Social media just has a short memory for topics like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, or even recent topics like Theranos and FTX. You may also have your personal list of “societal damages” that you believe should result in people being jailed despite not having committed crimes, but I guarantee your list doesn’t match everyone else’s list. You wouldn’t be happy when the list of “societal damages” started extending to things like using a VPN or trying to be anonymous on the internet, but for many people who get to government positions it most definitely would!
  - upboundspiral 2mo ago
    Executives mostly get jailed when there is large media attention + the executive was foolish enough to leave evidence pointing straight at them. For every case where an executive is jailed, there are 100 other cases where they aren't. And that is just in the overt "breaking the law cases". Even more incredible damage has been in us losing the laws that protect us in the first place. For nigh on 40 years thanks to neoliberal economists influencing policy we have been relaxing corporate and monetary regulation. This has already provided great gifts to the world, such as enabling the fraud that led to the 2008 housing crisis (who was jailed again?). When as a country you decide that punishing bad corporate behaviour is a non starter, you get the predictable consequences of increasing, not decreasing bad corporate behaviour.

smsm42 2mo ago

This all is based on false premise - corporation being a "legal person" does not mean they have same rights as people. You can liquidate a corporation and if is not murder. You can boycott a corporation and it's not illegal discrimination. Corporations can not vote or be elected into office. Etc, etc. It's just a technical term and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Stop perpetuating this nonsense.