| ▲ | ClarityJones 2 hours ago | |||||||
I think this is the opposite of missing the forest for the trees. It's not a legal fiction that ~"corporations are people." Corporations are literally individual owners, managers, employees, etc. with various personal rights and responsibilities. There is no forest but for the trees that compose it. | ||||||||
| ▲ | roughly 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
"People" in this case is a legal term, not a colloquial one. Nobody's arguing that corporations are not composed of people. And, arguably, yes, the same argument applies to the legal personhood of a forest - that proving that the impact on a group of trees aggregates to something significant and legally actionable is unnecessarily time consuming to keep doing every time someone tries to argue their clear-cutting operation hasn't actually harmed anyone, so you assign legal personhood to the forest so you can say "you harmed the forest" in the same way you can say "you harmed the corporation." | ||||||||
| ▲ | arch_deluxe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
A corporation is a single legal entity with distinct rights and obligations, that’s the entire point of incorporating, so you don’t have to create a fully connected graph of agreements between people, you can group them into entities that can then enter into agreements. The fact that corporations then have some rights similar to those of “natural persons” is the legal fiction referred to. | ||||||||
| ||||||||