> If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved

Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours.

> There is some reason they don't do this

I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the corporation is a proxy for people.

Your real argument seems to be that you think people should have to choose between exercising their rights and having the protections of the corporate form.

▲

wat10000 5 hours ago | parent [-]

"Protections of the corporate form"? You mean they aren't just proxies?

▲

rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that the corporate form has other benefits doesn’t mean that the corporations aren’t proxies for the purposes relevant here.

	▲	wat10000 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Likewise, the fact that corporations act as proxies in some ways doesn't mean that they must act as proxies for votes. Obviously, the court has ruled that they do in fact act that way. But we're talking about what should be, not what is. The question of whether corporate owners of residences should be able to vote in this town is not at all obvious, certainly doesn't merit dismissal with a glib "corporations are just proxies." They aren't just proxies. In some respects they are, in others they aren't. If they were nothing but proxies then there'd be no point to them.

▲

malcolmgreaves 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Got ‘em!