Comment by eternalban | Hacker News Reader

Comment by eternalban | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This then is the perfect historic opportunity to revist granting personhood to corporations.

p.s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Almost all such legal framings have been motivated by the legal difficulties of applying laws to organized groups of individuals. For example, entering into contracts is legally between two parties. Presumably, the sheer amount of legal reworking necessary to actually create and frame laws addressing legal situations involving groups of individuals as a single organized entity back when these precedents were being set outweighed objections. But today, specially with AI, the "it's too much work" excuse does not fly.

We need laws that are specifically framed in consideration of requirements and practicalities of entities, not slowly parcel out the legal rights of people to entities. Now that machines may soon be able to employed as willful agencies, we are willy-nilly granting legal personhood to machines.

https://thelawdictionary.org/juridical-person/

What about limited liability? It seems to me to be an enormous concession to corporations and their shareholders, and which never seems to be questioned in popular consciousness.

Do you see a connection between limited liability and AI, or are you going in the direction of "free gifts to corporations"? I'm trying to understand how limited liability interacts with AI and corporations.

If people running corporations are personally responsible (with no "limited liability" protections) they can't just play fast and loose letting AI make decisions.

That's between them and the people who choose to hire them (the shareholders) and lend them money.

When they operate within a society, and their actions affect society, then it's up to everybody else too.

Corporations and their shareholders should be constrained by the laws of society and operate to the benefit of society first and foremost, and by their profit-seeking second.

If that profit seeking or other interests go against societies (e.g. destroying the environment, bribing politicians, selling products that hurt people, etc.), they should be curbed.

I never really understood this. Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty?

It's much more limited than what its critics imagine. It's a legal doctrine to ensure shareholder's rights aren't violated. For example, shareholders having a right to Free Speech means you can't suppress that right when shareholders act through the corporate legal structure to utter speech.

Corporate personhood means that you can own a piece of a company without being personally liable, because the corporation is its own legal entity. This is why people can start businesses without worrying about being in debt for the rest of their lives if it fails. After all, if the corporation isn't a separate legal entity but just a collection of investors, if the corporation wronged someone, the investors could be sued personally.

Maybe the concept is taken too far in terms of political donations and free speech but no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies. I don't think a modern economy would even be possible.

> no corporate personhood would mean that very few people would stick out their necks to start or invest in companies.

What a dystopia that would be.

-sent from my iPhone

> Can a company go to prison or get the death penalty?

In theory, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution

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

Corporations like Citizens United can solicit donations from citizens who are fans and produce a pathetic hack-job movie about Hillary Clinton and pay to air it on cable TV, without the FEC saying “no,” because that’s an exercise of the free speech rights of citizens who are working together.

Corporations cannot vote because there is no meaningful legal way for people to vote together.

Corporations seldom need to be jailed because their crimes are actually committed by humans and you can send the humans to jail.

>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?

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.

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.

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.

>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).

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

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.

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

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

You have accurately described the concept of corporate personhood, which is a legal abstraction that allows corporations to be treated as individual entities under the law. This concept enables corporations to exercise certain rights and protections, such as entering into contracts, owning property, and in some cases, exercising free speech rights as demonstrated in the Citizens United case.

Indeed, corporations are a convenient way for people to work together and pursue common goals, such as conducting business. However, the concept of corporate personhood has also been a topic of debate, as some argue that it allows corporations to wield excessive influence over the political process and avoid accountability for certain actions.

It is important to recognize that corporations, as legal entities, cannot vote or be jailed, as you mentioned. When a corporation is found to have committed unlawful acts, the individuals responsible can be held accountable and face legal consequences.

As AI and other emerging technologies continue to develop and integrate into our society, it will be crucial to examine the implications of corporate personhood and consider the potential need for additional regulations to ensure ethical practices and accountability. Balancing the rights and responsibilities of corporations and individuals is key to maintaining a fair and just society.

Arthur Andersen was basically executed.

As was Silicon Valley Bank (though not it's parent corporation, SVB Financial).

It's a legal term of art. The term 'natural person' means a human.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com