Corporate insecthood (2022)(psyarxiv.com)
psyarxiv.com
Corporate insecthood (2022)
https://psyarxiv.com/rxkhe
95 comments
The primary issue, as I understand it, is front groups. Like some big industry will put up a 501c4 front group called something generic like "Cool People of America" and spend $1B of secret money to accuse their opponent of eating babies. No one can know where the money came from or really anything about the group, but they still have a legal right to spend unlimited amounts of money. It's easier for the public to understand if the money is attributable to company X or person Z.
Interesting. In EU there is a big push for documenting the real ownership of companies. So you can't hide behind shell companies. I.e. a difference between "legal owner" and "real owner".
E.g. a comapny like "nemlig.com Inc" is owned by "INTERVARE Inc" which is owned by 2 persons. But you still have to document those 2 persons for nemlig.com
See "Ejerforhold/Ownership" on https://datacvr.virk.dk/enhed/virksomhed/33070861
E.g. a comapny like "nemlig.com Inc" is owned by "INTERVARE Inc" which is owned by 2 persons. But you still have to document those 2 persons for nemlig.com
See "Ejerforhold/Ownership" on https://datacvr.virk.dk/enhed/virksomhed/33070861
This debate is internationally relevant when it comes to moral agency of corporations. The question is whether corporations have first-order moral responsibilities or whether all the responsibilities fall onto the shareholders. It is separate from the question of legal personhood which I agree is not controversial in most discourses.
[deleted]
I would suggest reading the actual opinion. Supreme Court Justices are typically pretty clear and concise writers. It’s very surprising how approachable the texts are.
There is some value to reading “explainers” who might explain some context or history, but less than you might imagine because every explainer typically brings a slant or spin of their own.
There is some value to reading “explainers” who might explain some context or history, but less than you might imagine because every explainer typically brings a slant or spin of their own.
A fair few people really don't like how robust our free speech protections are. Citizens United upheld those protections against yet another attempted "workaround".
I don't think there is any serious controversy about corporate personhood in the US.
Plenty of unserious, ignorant shouting, though
Plenty of unserious, ignorant shouting, though
There is plenty of serious controversy about it.
Should corporations be capable of holding religious conviction? Various evangelical Christian business owners and a number of conservative judges say "of course". Plenty of other serious, well-informed people say, in relatively quite voices, "absolutely not".
Should a corporation organized for the purpose of making a profit be permitted to freely spend on political campaigns? SCOTUS thought yes, plenty of other people think not (even if they would allow non-profit corporations to do so).
Plenty more like that.
Should corporations be capable of holding religious conviction? Various evangelical Christian business owners and a number of conservative judges say "of course". Plenty of other serious, well-informed people say, in relatively quite voices, "absolutely not".
Should a corporation organized for the purpose of making a profit be permitted to freely spend on political campaigns? SCOTUS thought yes, plenty of other people think not (even if they would allow non-profit corporations to do so).
Plenty more like that.
There are reasonable criticisms of Citizens United around limiting spending of corporate money directly related to politics. However, the lazy "corporate personhood" putdown is mostly silly. Obviously there are and have long been many ways in which corporations, trade associations, LLPs, etc. effectively act as a person for mostly good reasons. Barring criminal acts, you really don't want people suing a company for some action to instead identify all the individuals who were involved in some decision and go after them personally.
> Barring criminal acts, you really don't want people suing a company for some action to instead identify all the individuals who were involved in some decision and go after them personally.
You've inadvertently touched upon the thing I find most confusing about the concept of "corporate personhood", which is that they aren't treated anything like people when it comes to crimes. You might argue this makes sense, since they can't become citizens or vote either, but at that point I have to wonder why "corporations are people" is a more reasonable way to define things than just saying that some (but not all) things people do can also be done by corporations (like owning property, etc.). It makes as much sense to me as arguing that we should just define bats as birds because most animals that fly are birds, and it would be easier to just make "flying" only apply to birds instead of just saying it's a thing that non-birds can do as well.
You've inadvertently touched upon the thing I find most confusing about the concept of "corporate personhood", which is that they aren't treated anything like people when it comes to crimes. You might argue this makes sense, since they can't become citizens or vote either, but at that point I have to wonder why "corporations are people" is a more reasonable way to define things than just saying that some (but not all) things people do can also be done by corporations (like owning property, etc.). It makes as much sense to me as arguing that we should just define bats as birds because most animals that fly are birds, and it would be easier to just make "flying" only apply to birds instead of just saying it's a thing that non-birds can do as well.
>a more reasonable way to define things than just saying that some (but not all) things people do can also be done by corporations (like owning property, etc.)
I think that's the general state of affairs.
A corporation can send out a press release the claims in which are not all on the PR person identified at the bottom. Absent criminal malfeasance, a CFO isn't personally on the hook for a contract that the company can't meet. An individual developer can't generally be sued by a customer for a big in their code.
But people who didn't like the Citizens United decision rally around the corporate personhood flag even though, of course, corporations and other entities take collective actions that aren't always about individual responsibility.
I think that's the general state of affairs.
A corporation can send out a press release the claims in which are not all on the PR person identified at the bottom. Absent criminal malfeasance, a CFO isn't personally on the hook for a contract that the company can't meet. An individual developer can't generally be sued by a customer for a big in their code.
But people who didn't like the Citizens United decision rally around the corporate personhood flag even though, of course, corporations and other entities take collective actions that aren't always about individual responsibility.
> I think that's the general state of affairs.
Functionally, yes, it's the same. My complaint is that I think the way it's described is way less intuitive than it could be, which is at least partially responsible for it being viewed as controversial. Of course saying "a corporation is person, just a different kind" is a more confusing than just saying "corporations are not people, but they're allowed to do some things people are"; the former makes the legal term "person" directly conflict with the common non-legal usage of the word, whereas the latter is consistent with it without actually changing things legally. Maybe the law _is_ defined like that, and the idea of "corporate personhood" is just an informal term, but if that's the case, it should be even easier for people to stop trying to convince doubters that it makes sense instead of just trying to find more intuitive language to describe the concept. I'm not even convinced there _needs_ to be a term because it's not really that confusing of a concept; nobody needed to declare animals as "zoological persons" to make it illegal to poach via murder statutes.
Functionally, yes, it's the same. My complaint is that I think the way it's described is way less intuitive than it could be, which is at least partially responsible for it being viewed as controversial. Of course saying "a corporation is person, just a different kind" is a more confusing than just saying "corporations are not people, but they're allowed to do some things people are"; the former makes the legal term "person" directly conflict with the common non-legal usage of the word, whereas the latter is consistent with it without actually changing things legally. Maybe the law _is_ defined like that, and the idea of "corporate personhood" is just an informal term, but if that's the case, it should be even easier for people to stop trying to convince doubters that it makes sense instead of just trying to find more intuitive language to describe the concept. I'm not even convinced there _needs_ to be a term because it's not really that confusing of a concept; nobody needed to declare animals as "zoological persons" to make it illegal to poach via murder statutes.
The big issue here was with financing political spend as a corporation, and the finding was that there is no law today that stops corporate political spend.
The reasoning was along the lines that because corporations are people, and most organizations in the US are technically corporations (yes, even nonprofits, ngos, unions, clubs, etc) there's not really a way to subset out "large publicly held international conglomerates" or "businesses in industries that are mostly supplying the government" from "all social, business, and political organizations"
The reasoning was along the lines that because corporations are people, and most organizations in the US are technically corporations (yes, even nonprofits, ngos, unions, clubs, etc) there's not really a way to subset out "large publicly held international conglomerates" or "businesses in industries that are mostly supplying the government" from "all social, business, and political organizations"
Corporations were developed as a legal entity to take on responsibility and rights on behalf of a group that previously were only associated with a person.
But it is more of an analogy, and like all analogies it falls apart at some point. It doesn’t quite make sense to permit a corporation to be President, you would have to interpret the law in creative ways that likely would not prevail in court.
But it is more of an analogy, and like all analogies it falls apart at some point. It doesn’t quite make sense to permit a corporation to be President, you would have to interpret the law in creative ways that likely would not prevail in court.
While corporate personhood is uncontroversial in the context of legal tradition, I've always wondered whether another intelligent species with a psychology similar to ours (or even humanity, had our cultural development taken a different path), would consider it a fundamental legal concept. If a natural person were to be incentivised as a corporation is (i.e. complete self interest, only held back by the law, and even then, only if the penalty is higher than the profit from the action that led to it), we would generally describe them as a "sociopath".
[deleted]
> In my experience this is a US phenomenon.
Yeah I think so to. Regarding “public debate”, no lay person would really have an intuition for a corporation being a person. It’t not considered one.
> I am a lawyer in a different common law jurisdiction where corporate personhood is pretty much uncontroversial.
Oh ok…
Yeah I think so to. Regarding “public debate”, no lay person would really have an intuition for a corporation being a person. It’t not considered one.
> I am a lawyer in a different common law jurisdiction where corporate personhood is pretty much uncontroversial.
Oh ok…
Of course corporations shouldn’t be considered persons. They’re corporations.
Now it’s possible there’s a complete intersection in the legal rules which apply to persons and corporations, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same type of entities.
It’s useful to remember that corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best.
Now it’s possible there’s a complete intersection in the legal rules which apply to persons and corporations, but that doesn’t mean they’re the same type of entities.
It’s useful to remember that corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best.
Before anyone debates any position relative to the statement that "corporations are people," they should read the Wikipedia article on legal personhood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
It would immediately improve the quality of any discussion on the matter. This is a legal term. In law there are natural persons (humans) and juridicial persons (entities which can do some of the things which persons do, like own property, but not all of them).
So yes. Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. No need to point that out. You don't have to pass the bar to know it.
There is an interesting discussion to be had for sure about what rights we should extend to a juridicial person, and what rights we shouldn't. Society wouldn't function if we didn't have them at all. But it doesn't follow that they should be as similar to a natural person as possible. They are conceived basically as a practical shorthand for dealing with a group of people who want to jointly own property, conduct business, incur debts, and so on. A world without this collaboration would end up with... weird ultra-mighty barons doing that and personally employing thousands? Who knows.
No one sensible wants to treat them as natural persons. Arguments that they should gain rights just because "they're people" are specious. I just think the whole discussion is elevated if we talk about natural persons vs. juridicial/juristic persons.
It would immediately improve the quality of any discussion on the matter. This is a legal term. In law there are natural persons (humans) and juridicial persons (entities which can do some of the things which persons do, like own property, but not all of them).
So yes. Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person. No need to point that out. You don't have to pass the bar to know it.
There is an interesting discussion to be had for sure about what rights we should extend to a juridicial person, and what rights we shouldn't. Society wouldn't function if we didn't have them at all. But it doesn't follow that they should be as similar to a natural person as possible. They are conceived basically as a practical shorthand for dealing with a group of people who want to jointly own property, conduct business, incur debts, and so on. A world without this collaboration would end up with... weird ultra-mighty barons doing that and personally employing thousands? Who knows.
No one sensible wants to treat them as natural persons. Arguments that they should gain rights just because "they're people" are specious. I just think the whole discussion is elevated if we talk about natural persons vs. juridicial/juristic persons.
>>>> They are conceived basically as a practical shorthand for dealing with a group of people who want to jointly own property, conduct business, incur debts, and so on.
In my view, that's called a partnership. The defining entitlement for a corporation is limitation of liability for shareholders. If you own stock in Chrysler Corporation, and they can't pay their debts, their creditors can't come to your house and auction off your belongings. It's a transfer of risk from investors to creditors. Another way of looking at it, is that there's an artificial price floor of zero on a share of Chrysler stock.
This is not true for a sole proprietorship or general partnership. And natural people have different rules for when they can't pay their debts, thanks to bankruptcy law.
Society grants this entitlement because we expect to receive a share of the benefits, at the very least in the form of higher overall prosperity.
I have a strong hunch that without liability limitation, it would not be possible to raise capital for great ventures that make things like steel, airplanes, telecommunications, or computer chips. The typical "large" business would be something like a small factory or retail store.
In my view, that's called a partnership. The defining entitlement for a corporation is limitation of liability for shareholders. If you own stock in Chrysler Corporation, and they can't pay their debts, their creditors can't come to your house and auction off your belongings. It's a transfer of risk from investors to creditors. Another way of looking at it, is that there's an artificial price floor of zero on a share of Chrysler stock.
This is not true for a sole proprietorship or general partnership. And natural people have different rules for when they can't pay their debts, thanks to bankruptcy law.
Society grants this entitlement because we expect to receive a share of the benefits, at the very least in the form of higher overall prosperity.
I have a strong hunch that without liability limitation, it would not be possible to raise capital for great ventures that make things like steel, airplanes, telecommunications, or computer chips. The typical "large" business would be something like a small factory or retail store.
Most European bankruptcy laws still require individuals to repay their debts. There’s a lot of research indicating that this reduces entrepreneurship and economic prosperity. That’d agree with your hunch I think.
Indeed, this situation could be analogous to the fear of medical bankruptcy in the US, which is also said to stifle entrepreneurship.
Even the absence of bankruptcy laws wouldn't help to reduce the risk of lending to a private person. A private person is only of limited economic value and can realistically not be expected to ever be able to repay the possibly astronomic debts that corporations can accrue.
It's really hard to imagine what a world without corporate personhood would look like. Legal structures resembling corporate personhood have existed since ancient times. This is because corporate personhood is an emergent economic phenomenon. It's simply a natural activity for persons to pool together their resources and act for a common purpose. Legal measures to make forming and operating as a group easier and more reliable would invariably end up creating something very similar to a corporation.
> Everyone knows that a corporation is not a natural person.
Not everyone knows that is true *legally" The bulk of public debate is ignorant wailing motivated by a false belief that the law treats corporations as natural persons.
Not everyone knows that is true *legally" The bulk of public debate is ignorant wailing motivated by a false belief that the law treats corporations as natural persons.
Indeed that’s the message the paper conveys. Most people have no real idea how the law works on this, what the distinctions are, or why. Reading the comments here, many HN commenters seem to have no clue whatsoever what the actual legal facts or issues are either. They just have a vague impression and form opinions contextually on that basis.
However anyone actually deciding these things should doo so on the basis of an actual understanding of the real position in law and the consequences of changing it.
However anyone actually deciding these things should doo so on the basis of an actual understanding of the real position in law and the consequences of changing it.
Of course corporations can and should be considered "legal persons".
Under the law, corporations possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They can enter contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets, and pay taxes.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history...
Under the law, corporations possess many of the same rights and responsibilities as individuals. They can enter contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets, and pay taxes.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history...
Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving? No, the Corp can just evaporate and reform under a new name if their assets were managed properly. We should have some compensation for this.
Can they be incarcerated for misbehaving?
- their members and employee can be incarcerated,
- they can be enjoined / barred from conducting x, y, z activities,
- they can be executed / dissolved,
- they are subject to civil asset forfeiture if their assets were used in a crime.
- their members and employee can be incarcerated,
- they can be enjoined / barred from conducting x, y, z activities,
- they can be executed / dissolved,
- they are subject to civil asset forfeiture if their assets were used in a crime.
> their members and employee can be incarcerated,
Next time I commit a crime, I'll see if the prosecutors will settle for incarcerating some of my gut fauna.
Next time I commit a crime, I'll see if the prosecutors will settle for incarcerating some of my gut fauna.
Can corporations be owned, or is that tantamount to slavery?
Corporations are not natural persons, so it’s not an issue.
We don't imprison just the robber's hand: it's always the entire robber.
Try paying taxes like a corporation would - 20% on profits after expenses - and see if the judge buys your argument that you're a corporation.
Try paying taxes like a corporation would - 20% on profits after expenses - and see if the judge buys your argument that you're a corporation.
Corporate law is that compensation. Originally, corporate charters were only granted to organizations that proved their worth, and could revoked if they failed to uphold it. When a corporation commits a crime, the managers and employees are responsible.
Now, does law enforcement enforce the law? No, and there the problem.
Now, does law enforcement enforce the law? No, and there the problem.
Except that it patently does. Often. Corporations are fined, barred from various activities, have assets seized and members of them get sent to jail for criminal activity.
Small correction: typically it is not the members of a corporation who serve jail time associated with the corporation's criminal activity, but employees. To the extent that these two groups do sometimes overlap due to stock-based compensation schemes, your point is true. However, the corollary, which is that we generally do NOT hold the members of a corporation guilty for the acts of a corporation, remains the somewhat more potent observation.
We don’t hold them responsible for the actions of the corporation. We hold them responsible for their actions. For example the VW exec jailed over the diesel emissions scandal, and the former CEO has been charged with giving false testimony.
> corporate personhood is little more than a legal shortcut or convenience at best.
Kind of like inheritance vs. composition.
Kind of like inheritance vs. composition.
I find it particularly revealing that in these discussions about corporate personhood, the supporters go on and on about the rights of corporations but never about the responsibilities of corporations, and absolutely never about parity of consequences when there is wrongdoing
Also, I find it interesting that the intersection of populist views never seems to create cognitive dissonance, where we have given over outsized political influence to entities which can have foreign ownership.
If corporations are people - and if a single corporation is an 'independent entity separate from indidivuals that constitute it' - then there is only one logical classification that makes sense: if corporations are people, then they are also slaves.
People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. If corporations are people, they are also owned entities, they can be traded and sold like slaves on an auction block in New Orleans were 200 years ago. This seems problematic from both legal and moral standpoints, doesn't it?
One interesting solution would be to give each corporation its own AI mind that could argue for the corporation's interests and exercise free will. This would of course be complicated - the corporation might independently negotiate contracts with shareholders (who supply capital) and employees (who supply labor), rather than be entirely beholden to the executive board (which, in this scenario, would be reduced to an entirely advisory role, if not eliminated entirely).
Another stipulation could be that the corporation, our independent intelligent AI entity, would always hold a majority ownership in itself, i.e. 51% of shares at least. Of course, this would also do away with holding corporations, shell corporations, and other forms of hidden ownership.
Well... it's an interesting idea. Of course, the corporation was originally set up as a legal entity to shield investors from legal liability for their actions, comparable to organized crime setups where the Dons reap the majority of the profits but never get their hands dirty themselves.
People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort. If corporations are people, they are also owned entities, they can be traded and sold like slaves on an auction block in New Orleans were 200 years ago. This seems problematic from both legal and moral standpoints, doesn't it?
One interesting solution would be to give each corporation its own AI mind that could argue for the corporation's interests and exercise free will. This would of course be complicated - the corporation might independently negotiate contracts with shareholders (who supply capital) and employees (who supply labor), rather than be entirely beholden to the executive board (which, in this scenario, would be reduced to an entirely advisory role, if not eliminated entirely).
Another stipulation could be that the corporation, our independent intelligent AI entity, would always hold a majority ownership in itself, i.e. 51% of shares at least. Of course, this would also do away with holding corporations, shell corporations, and other forms of hidden ownership.
Well... it's an interesting idea. Of course, the corporation was originally set up as a legal entity to shield investors from legal liability for their actions, comparable to organized crime setups where the Dons reap the majority of the profits but never get their hands dirty themselves.
> People after all, have free will - and if they can't choose to quit their jobs, terminate their relationships with shareholders, executives, employees, etc., then they are in a position of slavery or at least, indentured servitude of some sort.
That's not quite the way I see it. To me, a corporation is an emergent intelligence that results from a system of smaller parts interacting with one another. Those parts are in fact shareholders, executives, employees, etc. In this sense, saying a corporate person is a slave to its employees is like saying we biological people are slaves to our cells and organs.
I have no idea if that's true, but I think it's fun to think about the implications. It certainly brings into question one of the premises of your post; that people have free will.
That's not quite the way I see it. To me, a corporation is an emergent intelligence that results from a system of smaller parts interacting with one another. Those parts are in fact shareholders, executives, employees, etc. In this sense, saying a corporate person is a slave to its employees is like saying we biological people are slaves to our cells and organs.
I have no idea if that's true, but I think it's fun to think about the implications. It certainly brings into question one of the premises of your post; that people have free will.
The AI argument is completely irrelevant. The owners of a corporation already delegate decision making to one or more natural intelligences, also known as the board. This (hive) mind is responsible for acting in the corporation's interest.
The legal requirement is that the board act in the shareholder's interest, which is not necessarily the same as the corporation's interest, is it? What if the board was instead elected by the employees and was directed to act in their interest instead?
Or, half the board could be elected by employees, and half elected by shareholders. What the corporate person would think about this is anyone's guess, though.
Or, half the board could be elected by employees, and half elected by shareholders. What the corporate person would think about this is anyone's guess, though.
The shareholders own the company. Therefore, the board has to act in the shareholder's interest. Usually this means that the share price at the stock market has to be maintained or increased, else the shareholders would suffer losses.
Employees have no stake in a normal company. Their contributions are remunerated by their salary, and their employment can be terminated at any time (details subject to jurisdiction of course). Some jurisdiction provide for a worker's council in larger companies that can influence decisions of the board. Corporations where employees regularly exercise control democratically are called worker cooperatives.
Employees have no stake in a normal company. Their contributions are remunerated by their salary, and their employment can be terminated at any time (details subject to jurisdiction of course). Some jurisdiction provide for a worker's council in larger companies that can influence decisions of the board. Corporations where employees regularly exercise control democratically are called worker cooperatives.
Jesus Christ. Only on Hacker News can one find a criticism of corporate personhood in which the complaint is that it doesn't grant corporations enough rights.
Corporations don't have rights. I understand that the law says they do: I'm saying the law is wrong. Rights are an inalienable thing granted to entities that have feelings, needs, the ability to experience joy and suffering, etc. You know what a person is: don't embarrass yourself by pretending you don't.
The entire purpose of capitalism is that it's supposed to result in the best results for people. Supposedly, competition will bring us the best products possible at the lowest price possible, while fairly rewarding people for their contributions. The entire point of this is to serve people: real, human people. Corporations exist to serve people, and if they fail to serve that purpose, they don't deserve to exist.
Some might argue that corporations are made up of people, and therefore corporate personhood is an approximation of representing those humans' rights, but that's a horribly inaccurate approximation of the truth. The majority of the people--real humans with rights--who make up most corporations, are workers, who are granted no power to speak on behalf of the corporation or choose what the corporation does. This means that when you treat the corporation as an entity with rights and responsibilities, you disproportionately concentrate the benefits of being a human in the people who are in charge of the corporation, who are then able to selfishly concentrate all the responsibilities--and punishments for not fulfilling those responsibilities--in the workers. This is why corporate personhood exists: because it allows a small segment of society to use the rights of humans to take actions while receiving none of the consequences if those actions are harmful, instead hiding behind limited liability and offloading the consequences onto workers and diverse pools of shareholders, some of whom had no visibility into the actions taken and too few shares to meaningfully make decisions.
And in fact, because certain aspects of corporate personhood don't make any sense, corporations have more rights than people. Slavery isn't illegal in the US: if you commit a crime, you can be forced to work in prison for no pay. But when corporations commit crimes, they usually get fines. If an individual knowingly sold an exploding car to someone and that person died, the seller would trivially go to jail. But when Ford did this, they paid damages. And incidentally, the decision to do this was made by people--people with human responsibility to not commit murder/manslaughter--and none of these people ever went to jail, either.
I'm going to say it again: corporations don't have rights. And corporations are harming people, who do have rights, on a massive scale. Whatever the law says, we have no ethical obligation to treat corporations with anything other than outright malice. As long as you don't harm any person, harming a corporation is a victimless act. And often, harming corporations helps more humans than it harms.
Corporations don't have rights. I understand that the law says they do: I'm saying the law is wrong. Rights are an inalienable thing granted to entities that have feelings, needs, the ability to experience joy and suffering, etc. You know what a person is: don't embarrass yourself by pretending you don't.
The entire purpose of capitalism is that it's supposed to result in the best results for people. Supposedly, competition will bring us the best products possible at the lowest price possible, while fairly rewarding people for their contributions. The entire point of this is to serve people: real, human people. Corporations exist to serve people, and if they fail to serve that purpose, they don't deserve to exist.
Some might argue that corporations are made up of people, and therefore corporate personhood is an approximation of representing those humans' rights, but that's a horribly inaccurate approximation of the truth. The majority of the people--real humans with rights--who make up most corporations, are workers, who are granted no power to speak on behalf of the corporation or choose what the corporation does. This means that when you treat the corporation as an entity with rights and responsibilities, you disproportionately concentrate the benefits of being a human in the people who are in charge of the corporation, who are then able to selfishly concentrate all the responsibilities--and punishments for not fulfilling those responsibilities--in the workers. This is why corporate personhood exists: because it allows a small segment of society to use the rights of humans to take actions while receiving none of the consequences if those actions are harmful, instead hiding behind limited liability and offloading the consequences onto workers and diverse pools of shareholders, some of whom had no visibility into the actions taken and too few shares to meaningfully make decisions.
And in fact, because certain aspects of corporate personhood don't make any sense, corporations have more rights than people. Slavery isn't illegal in the US: if you commit a crime, you can be forced to work in prison for no pay. But when corporations commit crimes, they usually get fines. If an individual knowingly sold an exploding car to someone and that person died, the seller would trivially go to jail. But when Ford did this, they paid damages. And incidentally, the decision to do this was made by people--people with human responsibility to not commit murder/manslaughter--and none of these people ever went to jail, either.
I'm going to say it again: corporations don't have rights. And corporations are harming people, who do have rights, on a massive scale. Whatever the law says, we have no ethical obligation to treat corporations with anything other than outright malice. As long as you don't harm any person, harming a corporation is a victimless act. And often, harming corporations helps more humans than it harms.
An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive. Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people? I’m a vendor and I vote with my feet.
> An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive.
True, but irrelevant.
> Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people?
Why should those other people be rewarded if they aren't contributing anything? I thought capitalism was about rewarding contributions?
To be clear, buying up all the means of production and withholding it from society unless they pay you rent isn't a contribution to society. It's creating artificial scarcity.
True, but irrelevant.
> Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people?
Why should those other people be rewarded if they aren't contributing anything? I thought capitalism was about rewarding contributions?
To be clear, buying up all the means of production and withholding it from society unless they pay you rent isn't a contribution to society. It's creating artificial scarcity.
Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail.
I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
> Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail.
Ah yes, as if investing your time and building a life dependent on income that can be taken away at any time isn't a risk.
I have no problem with people being compensated for lending, but stocks are like a loan with no endpoint, where you can just refuse to let the person pay you back and demand them pay you interest forever. At some point, you have to admit that the initial risk has been compensated and shareholders are no longer contributing.
> I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
"Don't outperform" is a nice way of rephrasing the fact that they don't underperform either, which is what you would expect if worker ownership was really a problem.
Ah yes, as if investing your time and building a life dependent on income that can be taken away at any time isn't a risk.
I have no problem with people being compensated for lending, but stocks are like a loan with no endpoint, where you can just refuse to let the person pay you back and demand them pay you interest forever. At some point, you have to admit that the initial risk has been compensated and shareholders are no longer contributing.
> I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
"Don't outperform" is a nice way of rephrasing the fact that they don't underperform either, which is what you would expect if worker ownership was really a problem.
If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share. Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns.
Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
> If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share.
Yes, I know. I'm saying that stocks are a tool that allows people to continue leeching off society far beyond the point where they've been fairly rewarded for their initial contributions.
> Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns.
That's a pretty large generalization which is incorrect in many cases. Bond terms and risk levels can vary quite wildly.
> Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
Compensates and otherwise treats its workers fairly. It's worth noting that not all incentives are monetary.
Yes, I know. I'm saying that stocks are a tool that allows people to continue leeching off society far beyond the point where they've been fairly rewarded for their initial contributions.
> Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns.
That's a pretty large generalization which is incorrect in many cases. Bond terms and risk levels can vary quite wildly.
> Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
Compensates and otherwise treats its workers fairly. It's worth noting that not all incentives are monetary.
(wiki) "The idiom tongue-in-cheek refers to a humorous or sarcastic statement expressed in a serious manner."
Alright, you got me, but in my defense, this is Hacker News. I guarantee that some of your upvotes are people unironically agreeing with you.
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person
My opinion is that "of course" they are; but that this also poses a challenge to our pre-corporate notion (conceptualization) of personhood.
My chosen way to make sense of this is that corporations are a person of a type person that exists above the layer (or 'strata') in which typical individual humans are persons. I say 'above' because human individuals are one of the main 'ingredients' that come together to form corporate persons.
the picture is how there are 'personhoods' of (at least) two distinct layers or strata: individual and collective persons. So the human individuals come together to form corporate individuals, a sort of meta-person.
And I mean this very much in the sense of an egregore; the main difference being how earlier large bureaucracies would use papers and letters and such, but corporate bureaucracies are now fully digitized and using computers in networks.
My opinion is that "of course" they are; but that this also poses a challenge to our pre-corporate notion (conceptualization) of personhood.
My chosen way to make sense of this is that corporations are a person of a type person that exists above the layer (or 'strata') in which typical individual humans are persons. I say 'above' because human individuals are one of the main 'ingredients' that come together to form corporate persons.
the picture is how there are 'personhoods' of (at least) two distinct layers or strata: individual and collective persons. So the human individuals come together to form corporate individuals, a sort of meta-person.
And I mean this very much in the sense of an egregore; the main difference being how earlier large bureaucracies would use papers and letters and such, but corporate bureaucracies are now fully digitized and using computers in networks.
What is the use of such a definition that needs to be qualified so much?
Its not a philosophical question, you don't need to decide it. Its just legal argument people came up with to try and give companies broad liberties to make more money. The article posted is about people's perceptions, of which it seems you are an outlier :).
Its not a philosophical question, you don't need to decide it. Its just legal argument people came up with to try and give companies broad liberties to make more money. The article posted is about people's perceptions, of which it seems you are an outlier :).
[deleted]
I'm not sure 'meta-person' makes much sense. 'Meta-data' is data about data, but what's a meta-person? A person composed of other people? Would such a person-made-of-people have free will, or would its actions be constrained by majority groupthink outcomes?
In the case of today's corporations, it's just the executive board (selected by the shareholders) that makes the decisions, with no input from the employees except in places like Germany where labor unions often have board seats. Meta-executive, perhaps?
Interestingly, if corporations are people, do states in the USA with the death penalty have the right to dissolve corporations that commit murder? How would a corporation be incarcerated for a crime like bank robbery, what would a prison for corporations look like?
It's hard to conclude that corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction whose true intent is to expand the liability protection for shareholders and protect internal corporate documents from legal discovery and so on.
In the case of today's corporations, it's just the executive board (selected by the shareholders) that makes the decisions, with no input from the employees except in places like Germany where labor unions often have board seats. Meta-executive, perhaps?
Interestingly, if corporations are people, do states in the USA with the death penalty have the right to dissolve corporations that commit murder? How would a corporation be incarcerated for a crime like bank robbery, what would a prison for corporations look like?
It's hard to conclude that corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction whose true intent is to expand the liability protection for shareholders and protect internal corporate documents from legal discovery and so on.
By this logic, any group of people cooperating to do anything is also a person. That is utterly nonsensical - what is the point of defining a group of people as a person?
Let's make an example: a group of people want to play football and have to rent a field. If they know each other very well, they could pool money and entrust one of them to rent the field. Activities like this are very common, but usually one-off and easily "audited" by the others.
If this activity is on a recurring basis though, or if there are new people joining, this way of doing things quickly becomes very awkward. What recourse have the group members if that person doesn't act on their task, or makes a deal with the owner of the field and pockets the difference, or uses the cash to bridge over cashflow holes in their personal finances? Or if they simply become incommunicado, or even die? The problems become even more severe when activities like festivals are organized, where the organizer would have to assume additional responsibilites. These problems would discourage any nontrivial economic activity.
Similar arguments can be made for other economic activities where unlimited and exclusive personal responsibility would be awkward. It's probably possible to regulate many aspects of such activities using contracts. But by doing that, something very similar to a corporation would be created. Of course, these days nobody does it this way. Most countries have very well developed laws that simplify these affairs.
If this activity is on a recurring basis though, or if there are new people joining, this way of doing things quickly becomes very awkward. What recourse have the group members if that person doesn't act on their task, or makes a deal with the owner of the field and pockets the difference, or uses the cash to bridge over cashflow holes in their personal finances? Or if they simply become incommunicado, or even die? The problems become even more severe when activities like festivals are organized, where the organizer would have to assume additional responsibilites. These problems would discourage any nontrivial economic activity.
Similar arguments can be made for other economic activities where unlimited and exclusive personal responsibility would be awkward. It's probably possible to regulate many aspects of such activities using contracts. But by doing that, something very similar to a corporation would be created. Of course, these days nobody does it this way. Most countries have very well developed laws that simplify these affairs.
yes, I admit that I've been trying to think about social interactions through this lens too.
but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
but there's a difference between any random group and a corporation. The idea being that writing so many things down, and maybe more importantly, putting money into the 'group' (and all the associated formalities) makes this transient person formed into something more permanent, something that can change out the people involved and make the corporation outlive its creators (which most corporations do normally).
That definition could also apply to nations, religious groups, sports teams, and many other types of organization, completely redefining the term “person”. What would be the purpose?
You're staring down a rabbit hole. If want answers to some of these questions, enjoy:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note: there are no real answers here, of course. I think the "purpose" though would be a less myopic view of what a person is. Notably, that there's no reason "person" and "homo sapien" should be synonymous. Once you admit that, then things start to get really fuzzy and we need a framework to get back to something that makes sense.
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconsci...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note: there are no real answers here, of course. I think the "purpose" though would be a less myopic view of what a person is. Notably, that there's no reason "person" and "homo sapien" should be synonymous. Once you admit that, then things start to get really fuzzy and we need a framework to get back to something that makes sense.
Until we gain a proper understanding and definition of consciousness, the matter is almost purely linguistic. Redefining the term “person” could happen if there’s a critical mass for it, but I think it’s unlikely because it would almost certainly serve to confuse, rather than inform, at least in everyday communication.
I haven’t looked deeply into the linked paper yet (although it does look interesting), but I’ve given the philosophical matter some amount of thought before.
I can only be (fairly) certain of the existence of my own consciousness. There’s no reason to think I’m special in regards to other people, so it’s safe to assume they have it as well. Animals seem to exhibit similar behaviors, and since we have a shared evolutionary background, I’d include many animal species, too.
Can’t say much for anything beyond that, regardless of how convincing, say, an AI’s words might sound. A photorealistic painting might also fool me, but I still wouldn’t attribute personhood to it afterwards.
The Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” did slightly change my mind on this matter, though. If we ever construct an artificial intelligence sufficiently similar to a human, it might be wise to err on the side of caution with respect to ethical treatment.
I haven’t looked deeply into the linked paper yet (although it does look interesting), but I’ve given the philosophical matter some amount of thought before.
I can only be (fairly) certain of the existence of my own consciousness. There’s no reason to think I’m special in regards to other people, so it’s safe to assume they have it as well. Animals seem to exhibit similar behaviors, and since we have a shared evolutionary background, I’d include many animal species, too.
Can’t say much for anything beyond that, regardless of how convincing, say, an AI’s words might sound. A photorealistic painting might also fool me, but I still wouldn’t attribute personhood to it afterwards.
The Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” did slightly change my mind on this matter, though. If we ever construct an artificial intelligence sufficiently similar to a human, it might be wise to err on the side of caution with respect to ethical treatment.
When the are engaged in any activity and need to limit liability.
[deleted]
A corporation has no responsibility to be morally good and is legally protected when being irresponsible. A person on the other hand is held to that same responsibility and prosecuted to the fullest when not.
This is quite kafkaesque(the castle, the trial, the metamorphosis, etc) to build on-top of the paper’s title. True horror.
This is quite kafkaesque(the castle, the trial, the metamorphosis, etc) to build on-top of the paper’s title. True horror.
I think the original formation of a corporation as a means to conduct a joint enterprise is instructive - that the idea of a legal "person" is at odds with its infinite duration. Most if not all issues with corporations (institutional capture, etc) can be solved by putting a fixed lifetime on an organisation and returning the capital to investors after say two or three decades.
I mean Google is coming up on it's thirtieth birthday, and many people might have other things to do with its cash.
I mean Google is coming up on it's thirtieth birthday, and many people might have other things to do with its cash.
Legal person means fictional person, as in a synthetic object the law applies to. It never meant "the corporation has civil rights" independent of its members' rights".
Humans are not legal persons, they are natural persons
Humans are not legal persons, they are natural persons
Zero investors in a corporation want their money back. The ones that did sold their shares. Why make them dissolve and reincorporate and disrupt the ongoing business?
There are special legal structures for corporations that entitle participants to withdraw their shares. But these are obviously not suitable for businesses that cannot tolerate this eventuality.
Why is the concept of juridical personhood, as against natural personhood, at odds with infinite duration?
The law doesn’t place a mandatory span on the recognition of natural personhood anyway. If someone did live forever, there’s no law or legal obstacle to them doing so and exercising their rights in perpetuity.
The law doesn’t place a mandatory span on the recognition of natural personhood anyway. If someone did live forever, there’s no law or legal obstacle to them doing so and exercising their rights in perpetuity.
Such legal changes would also need to address selling the company and / or its assets lest someone scheme to get around the length of life limit.
I am not so sure - if you owned a million shares of IBM plc and suddenly the CEO moved all the assets into JBM plc and you owned a million shares of f'all it looks a lot like fraud.
If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect.
I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ...
What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?
If you get handed a million shares of JBM you will want to be really sure they are equivalent or it's fraud. Does JBM have the same reputation? The same goodwill? Not if IBM is getting shutdown ... fraud again I suspect.
I take your point that there are ways around it. But imagine a slightly different scenario - every twenty years each marriage was dissolved and you had to sign a new contract to remain married - else divorce. Most people will just have an excuse to throw a party but ...
What do you think will happen to the divorce rate? And will those people find better partners afterwards? Will the mean happiness increase ?
This is not possible because it goes against the very basics of double-entry bookkeeping.
IBM's assets cannot be moved. They can only be sold, where assets are exchanged for other assets (most often cash or equivalents). What you mean is either petty theft or embezzlement, which are (white collar) crimes. In the event of an obviously and intentionally unfavourable sale, the shareholders (a.k.a. owners) can hold the CEO liable for damages. If the assets become impossible to recover, they are written off, which is a kind of expense in bookkeeping term. If this event is not recorded as such, there would be other crimes.
Double-entry bookkeeping ensures that assets can only appear on JBM's balance sheet if their source is documented. In practice, this meanr that they were lawfully acquired. Otherwise, the auditor would be on the hook.
Of course, it can always be that illicit activities are creatively hidden on the balance sheet and that the auditor didn't spot them. In that case, it could indeed be that JBM would have to either fix the reported budget or suddenly write off the amount that was found they don't really own. Things like these are always a risk.
Shares on the stock market are only worth their resale value and what dividends they can be expected to yield. This is hopefully basic knowledge to anyone who engages in stock trading, and it's the reason why public companies are tightly regulated and have to regularly undergo audits and report to the shareholders. The stock market does the rest.
I'd love to get educated, but I guess most divorces happen either within the first five years or after ~twenty years when the things that kept a bad marriage together (kids or physical appearances) go away. Limiting any marriage to 20 years would only get rid of the latter. I also guess that a lot less people would marry because marriage is a way to ensure the economic existence of the party who sacrificed their career to take care of children.
IBM's assets cannot be moved. They can only be sold, where assets are exchanged for other assets (most often cash or equivalents). What you mean is either petty theft or embezzlement, which are (white collar) crimes. In the event of an obviously and intentionally unfavourable sale, the shareholders (a.k.a. owners) can hold the CEO liable for damages. If the assets become impossible to recover, they are written off, which is a kind of expense in bookkeeping term. If this event is not recorded as such, there would be other crimes.
Double-entry bookkeeping ensures that assets can only appear on JBM's balance sheet if their source is documented. In practice, this meanr that they were lawfully acquired. Otherwise, the auditor would be on the hook.
Of course, it can always be that illicit activities are creatively hidden on the balance sheet and that the auditor didn't spot them. In that case, it could indeed be that JBM would have to either fix the reported budget or suddenly write off the amount that was found they don't really own. Things like these are always a risk.
Shares on the stock market are only worth their resale value and what dividends they can be expected to yield. This is hopefully basic knowledge to anyone who engages in stock trading, and it's the reason why public companies are tightly regulated and have to regularly undergo audits and report to the shareholders. The stock market does the rest.
I'd love to get educated, but I guess most divorces happen either within the first five years or after ~twenty years when the things that kept a bad marriage together (kids or physical appearances) go away. Limiting any marriage to 20 years would only get rid of the latter. I also guess that a lot less people would marry because marriage is a way to ensure the economic existence of the party who sacrificed their career to take care of children.
Ok, I am probably going to go back on my original idea - it's highly likely that regulatory effort into ensuring open transparent competition will get better outcomes than end of life cut offs.
Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
Always go for the hard work option not the easy to administer option
And those people are free to sell their google shares.
Like the bumper sticker/fridge magnet says, I'll believe that corporations are people (or insects) when the state of Texas executes one.
This citation style is so distracting. Everyone should just use Chicago style [1] from now on. Map a subtle little number to a footnote that I can read at my leisure.
[1] source-author, year; another-source-author, year; maybe my own ramblings; keep this verbose crap out of the text so I can better read/skim it.
[1] source-author, year; another-source-author, year; maybe my own ramblings; keep this verbose crap out of the text so I can better read/skim it.
In a dreamland, all papers are digitized; everyone can use inline hyperlinks as citation; and all URLs are archived for stable public access.
Some sites I've seen have a habit of following any outside link with an archive version of that same link (typically either the wayback machine or archive.today).
I've always maintained that if for-profit corporations are people, they are psychopaths. There's no mechanism for empathy in corporate structure, and indeed actual psychopaths are overrepresented in corporate boardrooms. Combined with the top-down nature of a corporation, where rules are made at the top and projected down onto employees that must comply or be cast out of the corporation, this makes corporations akin to totalitarian dictatorships, with the CEO in the role of Dear Leader. Often they even expect to be treated explicitly as such.
I much prefer a more democratic system of work. I wouldn't tolerate a totalitarian government at the national level, why would I willingly subject myself to one at my workplace for 40+ hours a week? I want a vote on my role, who my boss is, and what rules I have to follow. Most importantly, I want the executives' votes to count just as much as any employee's, and I want them to be bound as well by the rules we all vote on.
Turns out such entities are not as optimized at extracting wealth for shareholders, but they still do a decent job, and in my experience are far more aligned with community interests. In the future, I hope for more democratic corporate structures to become more popular, because I think the totalitarian profit-above-all model of a corporation has reached its limit.
I much prefer a more democratic system of work. I wouldn't tolerate a totalitarian government at the national level, why would I willingly subject myself to one at my workplace for 40+ hours a week? I want a vote on my role, who my boss is, and what rules I have to follow. Most importantly, I want the executives' votes to count just as much as any employee's, and I want them to be bound as well by the rules we all vote on.
Turns out such entities are not as optimized at extracting wealth for shareholders, but they still do a decent job, and in my experience are far more aligned with community interests. In the future, I hope for more democratic corporate structures to become more popular, because I think the totalitarian profit-above-all model of a corporation has reached its limit.
You clearly aren't aware of the rule of acquisition 211:
Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
Employees are the rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
> Whether the corporation should be considered a person is a matter of active academic and public debate.
If a corporation is considered a person, then it's the biggest asshole I know.
If a corporation is considered a person, then it's the biggest asshole I know.
Maybe it’s just a useful abstraction that allows shareholders/executives to act like assholes with some moral veil. At the end of the day, it’s still natural persons making decisions.
The whole “corporations are people” nonsense has to stop.
Right now they are an ant death spiral.
Very interesting, thank you :)
The hum of all drones is larger than the sum of the clones.
Synergistic buzzing, vague wording, public relations and human resources,
all good for emptying your purses.
Bzzt! Bzzt!
:->
Synergistic buzzing, vague wording, public relations and human resources,
all good for emptying your purses.
Bzzt! Bzzt!
:->
In my experience this is a US phenomenon. I am a lawyer in a different common law jurisdiction where corporate personhood is pretty much uncontroversial. Everyone knows that companies can deal in and own property, can enter into contracts, can sue and be sued. There is no real public debate about it. It seems to be controversial in the US because of the Citizens United decision.
I have to admit I don't fully understand the significance of the Citizens United decision. I get that it was based on the idea that corporations have the same rights as people under the constitution and that its effect was to increase the influence of money in politics. But if Citizens United held that it's illegal to restrict corporate spending on politics, presumably it must have already been illegal to restrict individuals' spending on politics, so presumably wealthy individuals could have spent their money on politics anyway (the only difference being that it's slightly less convenient when you can't use a corporation)?
If my understanding is wrong I'd be grateful to be educated.