[freech]

The employees of corporations are absolutely subject to things like the 3 strikes law and the death penalty for things they do for the corporation. So it makes sense that they have the same rights when they do things for the corporation.

It would be inconsistent to say: If you do something in the employment of a corporation you have same duties as anyone who acts on his own, but none of the rights.

[oldcynic]

Yes but, if corporations themselves are legally persons it should be the corporation that is tried for murder, and potentially sentenced to death. I'm not sure how you'd imprison a corporation under the 3 strikes law, but I leave that as an exercise for the Supreme Court

Otherwise they are wanting the rights of a person with none of the obligations and thus should not have them.

[gt_]

The problem here is pseudo-philosophical at most but if there’s an easy answer, it’s definitely not to interpret the metaphor literally.

If the entities are exchangeable (as you treat them) then the premise void. Are you sure you understand the problem? Exchanging one for the other may work in semantics but not in physical reality, because only one of them is physically real.

[srtjstjsj]

That's not true. If a corporation of people borrows money from you, and doesn't pay you back, you can't pursue repayment from them. The "corporation" is bankrupt, because it gave its (your) money to its employees or owners, who are not liable.