Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> states are the canonical governmental unit in the US,

No, they aren't.

They are no more canonical than the federal government.

> the federal government should be primarily concerned with interstate and international affairs.

While it may not be a perfect test, the applicability standard in Warren's proposal does a good job, IMO, of limiting applicability to corporations that are significant players in interstate and international commerce, not businesses that are primarily of concern for their state of origin.

> cancel corporate personhood

Juridical personhood is the central defining feature of the corporate form; “cancel corporate personhood” means “abolish corporations”.

View on HN

> No, they aren't. They are no more canonical than the federal government.

However much I might wish otherwise (because federalism is bad and anti-small-d-democratic), the 10th amendment explicitly gives all remaining/non-prohibited powers to States and not to the US. I kind of feel that makes them more canonical as a matter of law, even if that's not how we typically experience policy.

Yes, so?

I can see no reasonable definition of “canonical” for which that is relevant to the claim that the states are “the canonical governmental unit” in the U.S.

If you mean “responsible for functions not specifically assigned by the Constitution”, sure, but that's not what “canonical” means, and in any case the regulation at issue is arguably squarely within the scope of the Commerce Clause authority, so it would be a dubiously relevant claim even if canonical meant that.

If canonical means "as a general rule" or "default" then yes, powers by default are given to States. That's my only point.

I wasn't arguing anything about whether this regulation at issue is within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if you read my prior comment carefully.

> "Juridical personhood is the central defining feature of the corporate form; 'cancel corporate personhood' means 'abolish corporations'."

if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money? i'm quite skeptical of such a claim.

the corporate veil is unnecessary, just like the capital gains tax advantage, for promoting business. it's only encouraged bad behavior and protected incumbents, rather than supporting new innovation.

> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money?

Incorporation doesn't create the opportunity to make money—or even the opportunity to combine with others to do that—partnerships can do both.

Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability.

> Incorporation is special because it creates a separate legal person—corporate personhood—who is the target of legal action against the business enterprise, and for whose liabilities the investors have limited legal accountability.

Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable. When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved).

There it is: the corporate death penalty.

They are held accountable through lawsuits. Do you seriously contend that when a company kills someone out of neglect, they face no accountability? They are sued individually and through classes to the tune of millions (and billions in some cases).

I think most people would believe that, in most cases, the amount of liability they receive is disproportionate to the amount of harm they cause. And as more and more companies seek to ban class actions and require binding arbitration, saying that they actually face liability for their actions seems laughable.

> Part of the issue is that these separate "persons" aren't actually able to be held accountable.

They are able to be. Government just chooses not to do so.

> When corporations do something illegal by, say, killing people out of neglect, they aren't imprisoned (shut down temporarily) or executed (dissolved).

They can be, and have been (the latter more often than the former.)

> if we remove corporate personhood, will businesspeople then all of the sudden become less motivated to create companies and incorporate them so they have the opportunity to make money?

It's not about opportunity for profit, but protection from loss. When Elon Musk rolled some of his money from the Paypal exit into Spacex he did it knowing that if it fails, he would only lose what he put in. You are talking about a situation where the only two options are take no risk, or risk everything. Do you really think that this wouldn't discourage people from starting a low probability of success business?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com