Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
This is so stupid. People at the corporations already have a vote. So why should the "corporation" get another vote?
This is insane:
“According to the law, a person is anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings.
This is turning things totally on it's head. Companies are defined as legal persons exactly so they can be sued, and are responsible to the law. Not the other way around.
By this standard a company that doesn't make money should also have the right to social welfare, and when it gets old to receive a pension.
This is absolute madness, and in no way within what it means to be a legal person in any civilized country.
A legal person does not have for instance citizenship, a legal person does not have human rights, and maybe most importantly a legal person cannot go to jail. Only REAL people can do those things.
The reason it's called a "legal" person is exactly because it is not a REAL person, and for instance doesn't have a right to vote, because a legal person is not a citizen.
USA is such a shitty and insane country it's impossible to put into a few words exactly how bad it is.
The only thing I appreciated in the article was that the judge said that a fetus wasn't a person.
Yes, until the next case where it is. 🤡
Clearly the fetus should incorporate
Yeah, it's definitely putting the cart before the horse.
The law defines who can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings, and somewhere in there there's gotta be the assumption that you must be a person to do so.
So now they're saying that anyone who can do those things must be a person. It's circular reasoning.
If we make a law that says cats can now be subject to or initiate legal proceedings, does that make them a person? Or do we need a law that grants them personhood status in order to be subject to or initiate legal proceedings?
Also, this is kind of silly: "a person is anyone or anything that..." (emphasis added).
They're literally saying right there that a THING can be a person...
If my computer can initiate legal proceedings, does that make it a person?
How can you bar AI agents from initiating legal proceedings on the grounds that it's not a person, if the deciding factor that determines whether it's a person is whether it's capable of initiating legal proceedings?
This is going to open up so many cans of worms...
They’re literally saying right there that a THING can be a person…
Good point. Also an interesting example with the AI.
I wouldn't be surprised if AI will son be used to initiate legal proceedings, or directly start lawsuits, maybe even see them through.
By that logic an AI should also be able to vote, and so would any computer that can run an AI.
So many cans of worms.
They should've regulated it in 2021 but nooo "it'll hamper innovation" they said...
Even while everything is broken in the usa, the law is still broken. Lobbyists = terrorists/traitors, because they are in it for nothing more than money and power, at the expense of the people. Nothing would exist if it weren't for the people. Government/business needs reminding of that.
So if I start up a thousand businesses in town I can make myself mayor?
They have to own land according to the ruling. So you also have to sell each of them a square inch off the back of your lot. (I've seen nothing about the land needing to be buildable or habitable). IANAL though
Does that mean human beings who don't own property are no longer classified as legal people anymore?
Just how the founding fathers would have wanted it.
Basically Athenian democracy in a nutshell.
Oh, and Roman politics as well
Don't even have to, just make a thousand AI agents. If they can initiate legal proceedings, then they're people.
If someone says "They can't initiate legal proceedings, because they're not people," then just tell them "But they are people, because they can initiate legal proceedings."
This is going to be fun...
ETA: Basically the only two possible conclusions reduce to "They're not people, so therefore they're not people" and "They're people, so therefore they're people."
These are simultaneously contradictory and equally valid from a logical standpoint. That's why the ruling is so absurd. The justification itself is logically invalid, because it creates this absurdity.
I believe the main fallacy it commits is "circular reasoning," but there may be others.
This timeline is so stupid it hurts.
For someone who doesn't live in America, Delaware sounds like a perfect place for cyberpunk dystopia
From a governance standpoint, yes, I agree. However, the state as a whole is very rural and quite picturesque. There's a lot of beautiful forested wilderness there and it enjoys a nice bit of shoreline too. Not exactly evocative of Gibson's Sprawl.
Legalized corruption
If money is speech why can't you pay rent with poem?
If apple is fruit why can't you make applesauce with orange?
Good point. Let's go again. If money is speech, then why isn't the US Federal Reserve considered to be the most prolific writer/speaker of all time? And if money is legal tender, does that mean that some kinds of speech have within them the obligation of others to listen?
I mean I totally agree that money isn't speech and that's a bullshit ruling.
Just pointing out that A→B ≠ B→A. That's a very fundamental point of logic upon which nearly all formal logic rests.
Edit: wow whoever downvoted this needs to go back to school.
Yes absolutely.
It is however not always clear-cut that "A is B" maps to A–>B as opposed to A<–>B. We do say "the square root of nine is three", "a widow is a woman whose husband died" and "the current prime minister of Canada is Mark Carney".
It is clear-cut though, and that's why there's a separate construct for A←→B. It's the logical reduction of "A→B U B→A".
If those were the same thing then it wouldn't need a separate construct.
The reason "affirming the consequent" and "negating the antecedent" are formal fallacies is precisely because A→B does not imply B→A.
If the premise is A←→B, then those fallacies don't apply because they're biconditionals; either A or B can be the consequent or the antecedent.
"All apples are fruits" is a different kind of statement than "All widows have lost a husband." Because "Apple → Fruit" but "Widow ←→ Lost a husband."
And honestly that's a bad example, because truly a man could lose his husband and he would be a widower, so honestly that one's not even a biconditional. But most cases of equivalence and definitions are biconditionals, unless it's merely mentioning a category or precondition that is not exclusive to the thing in question.
Formal logic is quite thorough about this kind of stuff, so if there's ever a valid and sound deductive argument, it always holds true in every case. If it doesn't, then by definition it's either invalid, unsound, or not a deductive argument. Because a deductive argument that is both valid and sound always holds true.
Does this mean that a company that outcompetes another into dissolving can be accused of manslaughter?
It means all kinds of contradictory nonsense. The only thing we can be sure of is that corporations will be considered people when it benefits the rich and considered separate legal entities when it doesn't.
Oh yeah, can corporations be thrown in prison when they commit crimes now?
Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.
Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.
SCOTUS has sided with businesses regarding personhood since the 14th amendment was passed. Citizens United wasn't an isolated incident.
Yeah Leeja Miller went over this on her channel. Apparently one of the writers of the 14th lied and told the courts that they always was thinking of businesses when they wrote the amendment. Of course he was the only survivoring member at the time so no one could dispute him. All goes back to that court case. Its fucked always has been.
This is the same craziness sovereign citizens try to pass off in court as legal justification for whatever actions they took, but actually accepted by a just as unhinged judge
Jim Crow laws against working class next Delaware? Unironically the real great replacement theory is just rich fucks signing a stack of forms.
Can I marry a corporation?