Thread by @simon_brooke

A thought, arising from a dream, which is probably important and probably worth developing into an essay: part of the mess we're in, as a civilisation, is because, in law, we treat corporations as if they were persons. >>>

For example, in the US, corporations have the right to make political donations, because they are legal persons. More generally, corportations may enter into contracts, sue and be sued, and own property, because they are persons. >>>

However, this doctrine appears to be applied only when it is helpful to corporations, and not otherwise. So let's turn that on it's head, and work out what the consequences would be for corporations if they were subject to the same restrictions as other persons are? >>>

For example, one of our problems is huge companies which have become over-mighty citizens on a world scale. They do this by working across many jurisdictions. Actual people cannot do this, it is illegal immigration and/or working without an appropriate visa. >>>

Ah, but, you'll say, corporations don't actually do that, they set up new corporations which they own and control in the jurisdictions they want to operate. >>>

But (if corporations are legal persons), that's illegal. You can't own a person. You can't even own a share in a person. That's slavery, and it isn't tolerated anywhere outside the Gulf States. >>>

Which means, also, of course, that actual organic people who walk around on two legs, can't own corporations or shares in corporations, because owning persons is illegal. >>>

There must be many other things which the law requires ordinary persons to do (or to refrain from), which it does not require corporations to do (or to refrain from), because if it did the whole structure of capitalism would collapse. >>>

For example, should a corporation under eighteen years of age be permitted to enter into contracts? >>>

It seems to me that the legal doctrine that a corporation is a person only when it suits a corporation so to be and not otherwise, if made explicit, becomes legally untenable; and that if we undo that doctrine, much that is wrong with modern capitalism also unravels.

Comments?