4 ms·

Do we? Not where I live. Corporations cannot vote, etc. The US is an outlier in granting more rights to corporations than other countries.

rayiner 2mo ago
The U.S. isn’t an outlier in granting “more rights to corporations than other countries.” We just have less restrictive speech laws across the board. Countries that impose limits on speech through corporations also have much stronger limits on speech by individuals.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
eesmith 2mo ago
"personhood" doesn't require voting rights. Babies have personhood even if they cannot vote. Personhood can be applied to "natural persons", like people, and "judicial persons", like companies. Personhood can also be applied to, for example, rivers.
- ninalanyon 2mo ago
  If personhood can be applied even to something without volition then it has become such an all encompassing notion as to be essentially meaningless because when using it one will have to surround it with moat of caveats,
  - eesmith 2mo ago
    Yes, the intro paragraph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood highlights how it's a controversial subject. You are, I presume, arguing that companies should not have personhood. I think any definition is going to have caveats. When does a fetus gain volition? Does someone in an irreversible permanent vegetative state lose personhood? Do apes or cetaceans have volition and thus personhood? The Wikipedia page also points out that "volition" comes from a certain Western philosophical viewpoint, but other philosophies have a different idea of what personhood means. In any case, "personhood" doesn't mean that all persons have equal legal rights. A 10 year old has personhood but, for example, cannot vote.
atmavatar 2mo ago
> Corporations cannot vote, etc. That is no longer universally true: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upholds-voting-by-companies-small-towns-election-2026-05-26/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...

rayiner 2mo ago

The U.S. isn’t an outlier in granting “more rights to corporations than other countries.” We just have less restrictive speech laws across the board. Countries that impose limits on speech through corporations also have much stronger limits on speech by individuals.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

eesmith 2mo ago

"personhood" doesn't require voting rights. Babies have personhood even if they cannot vote. Personhood can be applied to "natural persons", like people, and "judicial persons", like companies. Personhood can also be applied to, for example, rivers.

ninalanyon 2mo ago
If personhood can be applied even to something without volition then it has become such an all encompassing notion as to be essentially meaningless because when using it one will have to surround it with moat of caveats,
- eesmith 2mo ago
  Yes, the intro paragraph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood highlights how it's a controversial subject. You are, I presume, arguing that companies should not have personhood. I think any definition is going to have caveats. When does a fetus gain volition? Does someone in an irreversible permanent vegetative state lose personhood? Do apes or cetaceans have volition and thus personhood? The Wikipedia page also points out that "volition" comes from a certain Western philosophical viewpoint, but other philosophies have a different idea of what personhood means. In any case, "personhood" doesn't mean that all persons have equal legal rights. A 10 year old has personhood but, for example, cannot vote.

atmavatar 2mo ago

> Corporations cannot vote, etc. That is no longer universally true: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upholds-voting-by-companies-small-towns-election-2026-05-26/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...