Corporations and other legal entities will continue to exist even after the world ends

*Translation- the only thing required to become a company- is to become a company. This is begging the question :D. Not really. The act of incorporation is a specific legal term that refers to the creation of a corporation. It just happens that the word "incorporation" sounds very much like the word "corporation". Once incorporated (ie registered as a corporation), the corporation comes into existence. *How so, if those are necessary referents to the concept? They are necessary for the creation of a corporation. Just like you need a mother to be born. After your birth, your mother could die. This will, however, not mean that you are dead. *What this ignores- is the fact that "War crimes trials" taking place proves that there is a government with the power to eventually enforce the law. No, it's there to illustrate that law can exist even where there is no legal structure, no government, where previous law has been replaced by a new regime. War-crimes were found as law subsequent to their commission. However, they did exist during their commission. This is part of that "natural justice" concept, the jurisprudential idea that laws can exist without a government. *A person has a life. Life has requirements. One of those requirements is somewhere to live. Hence a homeless person is a dead person? I would argue that some actually do survive the experience. *And the company was never a "Person," again, that's a legal fiction. The debate is about legal entities. That's stated in the very first sentence of my very first post. Please feel free to re-read it. "A legal person, also called juridical person or juristic person,[1] is a legal entity…. "(wikipedia) "Since the 1800s, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person."(also wikipedia) "There are limitations to the legal recognition of legal persons. Legal entities cannot marry, they usually cannot vote or hold public office,[8] and in most jurisdictions there are certain positions which they cannot occupy.[9] The extent to which a legal entity can commit a crime varies from country to country." (once again wikipedia) *The referent of a company is the start of a company? This makes no sense. "Incorporation" is not a start. Well, it is. But more importantly incorporation is THE ACT of establishing a company. It is performed in accordance with laws and processes. In any event, I am NOT going to argue semantics. This is not about semantics. You understood the meaning of the initial claim and you still do. You have been trying to muddle up the waters by pretending that you are confusing a bunch of truckies with the corporation they work for. I take it it's for the benefit of any viewers of this debate because I certainly do not believe it is for yours. *This debate is not about what the legal position is. This debate is about what actually exists or would exist. Incorrect. Read the first post again. "A legal person will continue to exist"… I refuse to believe that you were under the impression that this was about a physical existence. It could not be as legal entities do not have a physical existence. That is what makes this a legal debate. You cannot ever show me a physical corporation. There aren't any. You can show me a McDonald's store. But that is not the corporation. It's merely one of the assets it owns/leases. *That is an amendment to United States Law. Not to Confederate law. Correct. My understanding is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the South never had any legal power under the Constitution to declare secession. Hence, any "confederate law" was never good law and never needed to be revoked in the first place. *That which has existed =/= that which does exist. Again you are resorting to arguing semantics. And again I will indulge you by rephrasing: a tree in the amazon can and does in fact exist even if no human has ever laid his/her eyes on it. Yes, I know you might want to try and disagree. "A company is NEVER a group of people. It just is not." *Then what is it? DEFINITION: "A corporation is a legal entity created through the laws of its state of incorporation, treating a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. (…) Until formally dissolved, a corporation has perpetual life;" http://definitions.uslegal.com... (NOTE IN PARTICULAR THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE ABOVE DEFINITION AS I ASSERT THAT IT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE VERY GIST OF MY ARGUMENT) DEFINITION: "A legal structure authorized by state law that allows a business to organize as a separate legal entity from its owners. A nonprofit is often referred to as an "artificial legal person," meaning that, like an individual, it can enter into contracts, sue and be sued and do the many other things necessary to carry on a business. "http://www.nolo.com... Clarification: In the United States, a company is "a corporation—or, less commonly, on association, partnership, or union—that carries on a industrial enterprise."[ http://en.wikipedia.org... (NOW, this is where the problem lies with my use of the word "company" interchangeably with "corporation". The USA definition differs from that in Australia and is somewhat broader. Fortunately for me, I have made it abundantly clear from the very start that I am talking about corporations – the more common meaning of the term "company" even by US standards). *There is no such thing as a "Legal entity." Something has to exist IN REALITY to qualify as an entity- not just in the law's imagination. You disagree with the very existence of the concept "legal entity"? I understand that this is the very crunch of the argument. Main Entry: legal entity Function: noun : an entity (as a corporation or labor union) having under the law rights and responsibilities and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued (dictionary.com) *And you cannot define a thing simply by telling me what it is NOT, what it is SEPARATE FROM.. you also have to tell me what it IS. I must say that I am somewhat surprised that we have come this far before you actually admitted that you do not understand the meaning of the VERY FIRST WORD in the subject matter of the debate :) *Human laws command human action. They do not command reality as such. They cannot make an entity out of nothing. An entity has to exist as a particular and discrete unit in reality, not just a bundle of words in a legislator's whim. Human laws cannot create a physical entity. But they certainly can create a legal entity  Once again you are attempting to widen the scope of the very subject of this debate. I again refer you to the very first sentence, as well to the entire body of the initial argument. In short form: 1. A legal entity (corporation) is created 2. A corporation continues to exist as a legal entity until it is formally unincorporated ("officially resolved", struck off the register, call it what you will but it has to be done by an official act of a person with the power to do it). Feel free to do some research as to how a dissolution is done, as it does vary between jurisdictions. Failing that, please feel free to ask and I will give you a brief run-down of the steps involved in most jurisdictions. 3. In the event of the end of the world (or even the universe), step 2 never takes place 4. Therefore some corporations will continue to exist