6 ms·

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by NoPiece 14y ago

I think the wiki article on corporate personhood should be read by everyone who is bothered by the "corporations are misnomer" meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood -- The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.

MartinCron 14y ago
Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.
- beedogs 14y ago
  comments like these belong on reddit, not here.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    Ouch. This may be the only time that an critical comment from a stranger on the Internet has stung this much. Point taken. I'll try to do better.
adrr 14y ago
I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person. 470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm
- NoPiece 14y ago
  You are right, but I do think it ties into the larger "corporations are people" thing that has been bothering people since the campaign finance reform law was overturned.
bluedanieru 14y ago
Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits. These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American. The beef is: >people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A corporation is also a group of people who get together and petition their government for special treatment. This is not a bad thing as it is basically what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But, if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that. I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity.
- forgingahead 14y ago
  > I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity So, what are your opinions on mandatory union dues, and on whether recipients of government assistance should be allowed to vote?
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how unions are expected to behave? Also important. I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up their right to vote in principal, although America would cease to be a democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome (disenfranchisement of the poor, eventual oppression without any means of placation of said poor, probable rebellion) would be good for society, so I don't think we should do it. Keep in mind, I'm not saying "corporations receive special treatment and so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns". I'm saying "corporations receive special treatment, and I have no problem with putting stipulations on that". All I'm arguing against here is the meme that a corporation is "just a group of people". It is not.
avivo 14y ago
There is a critical difference between most corporations and people, which makes them far more dangerous - for a corporation the "only" goal is profit. In colloquial terms, corporations are "psychopaths". Corporations being psychopathic can be very useful for a number of applications (such as efficient resource allocation and rapid economic growth), especially given a regulatory system that ensures that the pursuit of profit provides utility to the commons. It's so useful, that we even require corporations by law to single-mindedly pursue profit - if they didn't, and e.g. your social security benefits were invested in those corporations, there would be no recourse if they spent their money negligently. Unfortunately, when corporations amass enough power to control the regulatory system you have major issues, as there is nothing to control their "psycopathic" tendencies. This is a crucial reason why "corporate personhood" and other forms of corporate power should have limits - in order to keep our checks and balances functioning. If we fail to do this, profit maximizing entities will gain more and more control over the resources available to human beings. So, while many aspects of corporate personhood are wonderful and convenient, we need to be very careful what powers corporations are granted. [yes, I gloss over some details to keep this short: fiduciary duty conditions, clinical definition of psychopathy,..; but these don't critically affect the main thesis as far as I am aware]

by NoPiece 14y ago

MartinCron 14y ago

Such a killjoy, bringing reality to the anti-corporate angry mob party.

beedogs 14y ago
comments like these belong on reddit, not here.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  Ouch. This may be the only time that an critical comment from a stranger on the Internet has stung this much. Point taken. I'll try to do better.

adrr 14y ago

I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person. 470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation. http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm

NoPiece 14y ago
You are right, but I do think it ties into the larger "corporations are people" thing that has been bothering people since the campaign finance reform law was overturned.

bluedanieru 14y ago

Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits. These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American. The beef is: >people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A corporation is also a group of people who get together and petition their government for special treatment. This is not a bad thing as it is basically what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But, if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that. I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity.

forgingahead 14y ago
> I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity So, what are your opinions on mandatory union dues, and on whether recipients of government assistance should be allowed to vote?
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  How are the union dues made mandatory? That's important. And, if there is government involvement in that, is there also some regulation involving how unions are expected to behave? Also important. I don't have a problem with recipients of government assistance giving up their right to vote in principal, although America would cease to be a democracy at that point. However I don't think the likely outcome (disenfranchisement of the poor, eventual oppression without any means of placation of said poor, probable rebellion) would be good for society, so I don't think we should do it. Keep in mind, I'm not saying "corporations receive special treatment and so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns". I'm saying "corporations receive special treatment, and I have no problem with putting stipulations on that". All I'm arguing against here is the meme that a corporation is "just a group of people". It is not.

avivo 14y ago

There is a critical difference between most corporations and people, which makes them far more dangerous - for a corporation the "only" goal is profit. In colloquial terms, corporations are "psychopaths". Corporations being psychopathic can be very useful for a number of applications (such as efficient resource allocation and rapid economic growth), especially given a regulatory system that ensures that the pursuit of profit provides utility to the commons. It's so useful, that we even require corporations by law to single-mindedly pursue profit - if they didn't, and e.g. your social security benefits were invested in those corporations, there would be no recourse if they spent their money negligently. Unfortunately, when corporations amass enough power to control the regulatory system you have major issues, as there is nothing to control their "psycopathic" tendencies. This is a crucial reason why "corporate personhood" and other forms of corporate power should have limits - in order to keep our checks and balances functioning. If we fail to do this, profit maximizing entities will gain more and more control over the resources available to human beings. So, while many aspects of corporate personhood are wonderful and convenient, we need to be very careful what powers corporations are granted. [yes, I gloss over some details to keep this short: fiduciary duty conditions, clinical definition of psychopathy,..; but these don't critically affect the main thesis as far as I am aware]