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

"The only thing a company requires to come into life is incorporation." Translation- the only thing required to become a company- is to become a company. This is begging the question :D. "Of course, to be incorporated it must have a director, a secretary and a shareholder. That is conceded. However, it does not need to have them to continue its existence." How so, if those are necessary referents to the concept? "As for the second point (no government to protect it, no legal system)…. Now this goes to a totally separate issue," No, it goes to a more fundamental issue, upon which the issue at hand is dependent. Not a separate issue. " What about war-crimes trials? Trials for crimes that were often committed by persons who were acting under a certain regime, often within the very legal structure of that regime. Obeying orders that were issued by their superiors in a territory where there was no government to prohibit such actions or to enforce any laws (eg occupied Poland in WW2). Subsequent actions for those crimes relied on the contention that the crimes were still crimes even if there was no legal system to enforce them or, indeed, to define them as crimes. What follows is that the mere fact that there is no government protection or enforceability does not relinquish the existence of law." 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. " With all due respect, this is circular. Your aim as Con is to disprove my contention that the company STILL IS A PERSON. You can not use a self serving statement like the one above in order to substantiate itself." A person has a life. Life has requirements. One of those requirements is somewhere to live. And the company was never a "Person," again, that's a legal fiction. "The only referent of a company is its incorporation." The referent of a company is the start of a company? This makes no sense. " If you do not accept the (INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED) legal principle that a company is a completely separate legal entity then you are not addressing the argument at hand. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the legal position." This debate is not about what the legal position is. This debate is about what actually exists or would exist. " I now refer you to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. I post it here for your convenience. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." That is an amendment to United States Law. Not to Confederate law. "Very well, another example then. I invent a time machine. I never write down the plans, the design is never documented. I die with that knowledge. The machine I invented would have worked if it had been in fact built. After my death, there is nobody to ever carry on the concept that I have invented. Does that mean the concept does not exist?" Yes. The concept has been eradicated. No brain exists which contains the concept in question. "An ant that has existed in some remote forest in the Amazon HAS existed irrespective of whether or not it was ever seen by a human being" That which has existed =/= that which does exist. I understand that you have never heard of Intangible Assets, eg shares, accounts receivable, goodwill, intellectual property and a broad range of things universally (oh that word again) recognized by accountants and lawyers." You're understanding is false. I have indeed heard of these things- but their existence is not as a primary. It is derived. It can only exist when something tangible (in the case of intellectual property, for example, a brain which made it possible) exists as it's referent. And these continued statements about "Universally recognized" (by a specific class, obviously not completely universally) have a term. It's known as ad authoritatem. " A company is NEVER a group of people. It just is not." Then what is it? "A company is a separate legal entity, whether you like that or not." An entity with what characteristics? Found where? 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. "It's in the very definition of a company in every book across the globe." http://www.answers.com... These are taken out of dictionaries, which are books. 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. " Very good. Now here's the bottom line: If the law SAYS a legal entity will exist then the legal entity will exist. That is because it is the law and ONLY the law that can define the existence of a legal entity. " 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.