Umm, Im really missing something here.
I have some familiarity with corporations and their legal standing.
LLC's are not "people" and are specifically created to protect personal assests.
What are you getting at?

ant wrote:Umm, Im really missing something here.
I have some familiarity with corporations and their legal standing.
LLC's are not "people" and are specifically created to protect personal assests.
What are you getting at?

We're not saying that they are people in actuality. But they are often treated as such by some millionaires who think they are above the law.

ant wrote:Umm, Im really missing something here.
I have some familiarity with corporations and their legal standing.
LLC's are not "people" and are specifically created to protect personal assests.
What are you getting at?

Google "corporations are people". You have to see it for yourself. It will return articles from tons of popular magazines and websites talking about how corporations are people. It's widespread.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:Umm, Im really missing something here.
I have some familiarity with corporations and their legal standing.
LLC's are not "people" and are specifically created to protect personal assests.
What are you getting at?

Google "corporations are people". You have to see it for yourself. It will return articles from tons of popular magazines and websites talking about how corporations are people. It's widespread.

Was looking at 3Quarks Daily this morning and came across this article
Have you seen it?


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... share&_r=1

Some interesting stuff about philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and the way we use language.

Using language that signifies personhood when talking about corporations may just be that - a choice of words in conversation.


The social consequences are interesting when you think about it.

If we humanize abstract entities, does that in turn lessen the humanity of each individual?
(that was just a random thought - don't pay attention to it).

Movie Nerd wrote:

ant wrote:Umm, Im really missing something here.
I have some familiarity with corporations and their legal standing.
LLC's are not "people" and are specifically created to protect personal assests.
What are you getting at?

We're not saying that they are people in actuality. But they are often treated as such by some millionaires who think they are above the law.

i wasn't thinking that. I was thinking about this from a legal standpoint.

I didn't think Google, Inc. was at home having a beer and scratching "his" nuts.

ant wrote:i wasn't thinking that. I was thinking about this from a legal standpoint.

I didn't think Google, Inc. was at home having a beer and scratching "his" nuts.

It really does make sense to give corporations some of the benefits usually reserved for people. From a legal standpoint, I think it's wise to treat corporations as entities. But you're right about language usage. When stuff spreads, the way people talk about it changes their perceptions. They conflate "entity" with "person", and it becomes truth for an entire nation.

It really does make sense to give corporations some of the benefits usually reserved for people.

Name one benefit as an example.

ant wrote:Name one benefit as an example.

They can be sued.


Yeah, sorry.... they can enter contracts that are binding even with staff changeover.

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:Name one benefit as an example.

They can be sued.


Yeah, sorry.... they can enter contracts that are binding even with staff changeover.

Hmmm..

I'm going to have to think about this one and maybe even pick some brains that I know who work in this field.
I actually am interested in knowing myself what the reasoning for this type of justification is.

Fascinating.