Corporations are people.

Many thanks to my partner, for his recent presentation. An important distinction between the competing visions of corporate personhood is beginning to emerge, that better illustrates the differences between my partner and I on this issue. He clearly regards corporations as a type of group of people – and I see them as a type of human behavior. I am here arguing that it is best that we perceive corporate charters as a type of group activity and social interaction – and not as any particular type of person. To make this point clear, I will use the example of “Americans,” which belong to the ‘corporate’ entity of the United States of America. Americans are not “types” of people – they are citizens of this nation, and are able to move in and out of this entity more or less at will. “American” as a type of pluralized “people,” is a concept that exists independently from any accurate description of any particular kind of person. In other words, the question, “is America people?” is almost nonsensical. An “American” is decidedly not a type of person – but rather a description of the group affiliation of these individuals. What I am attempting to argue is that our language allows certain ‘conceptual shortcuts’ to exist which can cause confusion if we take them too literally. We are parts of groups – we are not groups. Therefore, we cannot be considered to be identical to groups... even considered as a plurality. Because even in groups - we remain individuals. The US laws in question, that establish the same general rules as might also apply to humans are not entirely relevant – because they do not create humans. My partner mentions these, but they change nothing but the way that US law will behave with regards to corporations. Non-human corporations are by definition, not corporations, and therefore this argument is irrelevant. I continue to press this line of reasoning, because I feel that it is central to the discussion, and anything but irrelevant. If it is possible for a corporation to exist – without any human membership – then the debate will become instantly far more difficult for my partner to win. As I am a remorseless troll, I really can’t bring myself to pass up such an opportunity. Therefore, I will not concede that there exist no corporate charters anywhere that have zero human memberships. I also argue against changing the definition of corporation to exclude those charters that lack such human membership. I argue that the townships with legal charters, but no population, should be held as a credible example of the premise that, “corporations are people” failing to be securely established. fallacy of composition Having been accused of a logical fallacy, I am strongly compelled to reply. In my argument, I pointed out that humans and corporations cannot be considered identical, because they are not interchangeable, or reversible. I maintain that this is true, and shall clarify: 1. Humans are living beings, but not identical to other living beings. 2. Humans are “people” but not identical to other people. (Humans are indivisible persons – hence my contention that liberties make no sense on a mass scale, but only as “Individual Liberties.”) In order for reversibility or interchangeability to work in this context, two persons would have to be identical – which is absurd. If a child dies, the grieving parents will not be consoled much by having another child given to them as a replacement – because reversibility and interchangeability have failed to establish that the two children (the deceased child and the replacement child) are identical. Similarly, no person can be “replaced” with a corporation. Therefore, we can logically prove a dissimilarity. This concept strikes to the heart of what troubles most observers about the concept; that in order for corporations to become human – then humans would necessarily also become corporatized. Corporations are legally binding agreements between persons and the state. They are not persons themselves, but simply the agreements that these participants have made in order to regulate each other’s behavior. Because people are involved in this process does not change the fact that corporations are entirely comprised of these agreements. The people themselves may even move out of the arrangement, leaving the corporation itself without human membership. Under what legal system could a corporation exist that has no human membership? Our current legal system allows for a madman to leave an entire charter in the hands of his wife’s poodle. In fact, should the laws governing corporations change, then so shall the nature of the corporations themselves. When a corporate charter expires, this does not represent an “execution;” all of the humans “survive.” My point? That corporations should be considered agreements between people – subject to the whims of those people involved…and not to be confused with the actual people themselves. The corporation is a changeable agreement to interact in a certain way – not a living entity itself – only the agreement by which those people agree to interact. To underscore – you are not what you own. You are not your job. You are not your family, and you are not your country. Corporations can be considered groups of persons Yes, corporations can be considered groups of people – but according to the court cases cited by my partner, this is not always the case – corporations are often considered to be single entities, not groups. The logic behind this treatment is to provide a level of convenience in dealing with these charters that makes such negotiations with them possible. The cases that have been presented by my partner help me to demonstrate this point, by explicitly pointing out that the “single entity” designation exists for the protection of those who enter into legal arrangements with these entities. Summary: 1. We have not been presented with a compelling reason why towns with populations of zero should not be considered to be corporations. Towns must incorporate, and this charter does not expire simply because residents leave town. 2. Corporations, although they sometimes have human memberships, are not always required by law to maintain human memberships after their charter is granted. 3. Corporate charters – and all other such laws – should be considered types of human behavior – and not necessarily human groups or (especially) human beings. This is because human membership is simply not a sufficient, or even a necessary, component of maintaining a corporate charter. In addition to towns with zero populations, any of our readers can create a corporation themselves – with no members. For a small $200 fee, articles of incorporation can be filed by a single person, who is not required to be a member of that corporation. (This is often done to hide assets, and leave no living person available to sue.) [1] I certainly hope that any readers who might be considering casting a vote on this debate is made aware of this.My challenge to the premise of this debate, therefore stands: Corporations cannot always be considered to be humans, but rather, a type of human behavior. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...