[coldtea]

>Corporations have rights because they are owned by humans and those humans have rights.

One does not really follow from another. Washing machines are also "owned by humans" but they don't get rights.

>Corporations are just a convenient way to do things together, like conduct a business and own property. Corporate personhood is just a legal abstraction to represent those peoples’ rights, a facade pattern that lets multi-person groups neatly fit in existing laws that might discuss individuals.

Doesn't really follow either. Why would it need to be "corporate personhood" and not just a "corporate law"? Why did "personhood" have to enter the picture?

[sclarisse]

It is seldom more-convenient to represent your property as a thing that has rights. But if we did decide to speak as if it had rights, it would have its owners rights.

It would have the right not to be searched by the government, without due process of law, for instance. (This is your right not to be searched.) It would have the right not to have some components or clothes therein seized by the government, without just compensation. (This is your right not to have your property seized.) It would have the right to free speech, which might be relevant if you programmed an on board chip to play some interesting audio. (Mine does Schubert, a factory setting.)

A corporation has the right to put out whatever message it likes, because its owners have that right. This is often threatened. Courts just find it convenient to try cases as if the corporate entity were a person acting instead of referring to “the rights of the various owners [list here], who are acting through the corporate entity” every single time. That’s it. That’s the entire doctrine. That’s literally all it is or means.

[coldtea]

>A corporation has the right to put out whatever message it likes, because its owners have that right. This is often threatened.

I think it would be that bad if a corporation didn't have some of those rights.

For example, one difference between a corporation and a person, is that a corporation is for profit. A corporation is also potentially much more powerful than a person (in how far-rereaching it can get, how powerful, how many people it controls as employees, and so on).

So a corporation should perhaps have less rights than people owning it. And be hit with more responsibilities (e.g. to contribute back to society, and so on).

[sclarisse]

In this jurisdiction, you don’t lose your rights (e.g. to free speech) because you also pursue profit.

[eternalban]

Somehow you are claiming that restrictions on the speech of an entity owned in part by a citizen has deprived that citizen of her rights. What has been denied is the 'over-reach' of the citizens who wish to extend their rights to their dues ex machina.

Even if corporations had no right to speech whatsoever (total imposed silence), their owner still fully enjoy their rights and have the same precise rights to free speech as those who don't own anything.

[GauntletWizard]

As the foundation, the cornerstone, the most base part of said "Corporate law". Corporations do not exist without some humans behind them. There are no fully-autonomous corporations in corporate law (despite what ethereum would have you believe) . There are only groups of people. Those people, officers of corporations, impart the personhood - The Corporation is just an embodiment of the collective action of the officers.

[coldtea]

Well, you don't really need to attribute "personhood" to corporations for that, do you?

You just need to codify into law what rights you afford the runners/owners of a corporation when acting on its behalf, and how blame/consequences/fines etc is transferred to the runners/owners of the corporation when they make shady shit.

In fact you could have more or less the same corporate laws as today, and not mention a concept of "personhood" there at all.

[Animats]

Read Santa Clara vs SPRR.[1] Long subject.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....