[NoPiece]

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

--

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.

[avivo]

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]

[adrr]

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

[NoPiece]

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.

[MartinCron]

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

[beedogs]

comments like these belong on reddit, not here.

[MartinCron]

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.

[bluedanieru]

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.

[NoPiece]

If you read the article, it doesn't ignore those facts. Those benefits are the point of corporations, and the "personhood" a side effect.

Sure there are strings attached, but speech goes directly to the rights of the collective. Would you support a law banning corporations from printing newspapers or newsletters? You have to be careful when you start taking away the most basic rights.

[bluedanieru]

Perhaps, but again, I'm not arguing that corporations should or shouldn't be able to do X, only that they have no 'rights' as such. If a group of people want to retain those rights, they can always act collectively without first asking the state for special treatment. And, of course they retain their rights as individual persons, no matter what.

Oh, and I totally read the article? Is this kind of snarky reply just sort of a default thing to do when you disagree with someone now? In that case: if you read the article, you will not find that it addresses these points I have made at all.

[NoPiece]

I didn't intend to be snarky, I really did assume you didn't read the article becasue you said the article ignored the legal and tax benefits, and the it does mention both.

If you believe that the government can regulate the free speech of a corporation, where does the limit end? Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?. It is safer to keep free speech as close to absolute as possible.

[bluedanieru]

>Can they say that Newspapers that are owned by corporations don't have complete freedom to publish what they want? Let's say they passed a law saying no corporate political speech within 1 month of an election - would that mean no New York Times endorsements?

Yes, that's exactly what it means! We do the same thing with unions, and with religious organizations that are tax-exempt. What makes corporations so special?

You are, of course, always free to decline the privileges granted to a corporation. Draw up some contracts between you and your partners and write whatever you want, whenever you want. If your newspaper is guilty of libel, you may be liable for that. If your newspaper goes bankrupt and owes money all over town, you might be on the hook for it personally. Accept that in the course of securing privileges natural persons do not enjoy, your corporation may be asked to give up rights that natural persons possess.

Much like patents and copyright, corporations are a legal fiction, invented by society, for the benefit of society. On all three counts, the balance of power has shifted heavily in favor of patent holders, copyright holders, and corporations. This does not indicate some natural law, but rather corruption in our own governments.

[NoPiece]

I don't really disagree about the shift in power, but it doesn't have anything inherently to do with the structure of corporations (liability shield, "person", tax status). If you want to disallow corporations from political donations, then you are blocking 1000's of small businesses from having a voice while allowing billionaires like David Koch and George Soros have unfettered access to politicians. Whatever your particular concern is rooted in, there is probably a general solution (e.g., public financing of campaigns) other than singling out corporations which are a useful and diverse group of entities.

[forgingahead]

> 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?

[ljf]

Ouch, I doubt (for example) the farmers would be pleased about that. And they are a pretty huge voting block! Or do you just mean welfare?

[bluedanieru]

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.

[littlegiantcap]

If you've ever worked in a union shop in a state that isn't right to work, you have no say in the matter of union dues. If 50% + 1 vote to enact a union you're required to pay the dues.This is of course different in right to work states where you can have so called split shops.