Without it, technically the government can just seize corporate assets as an example.
Also legal personhood != human person even under the law. They are distinct. Note this all is from my laywer drinking buddy but the one time I asked him about it he had a bit of a sigh that the nuances are a lot more complex than “corporations are people under law” like it was some sort of soylent green situation. The Tillman act as an example is a good example of why you want personhood for businesses. Unless we want to not be able to collectively barter as a group I would argue that is a good thing.
Out of curiosity, why is corporate personhood necessary to prevent arbitrary seizure of corporate assets given that a natural person (human) owns the corporation and therefore owns the assets? It seems like that would have been a much simpler way of making that work. So it feels like there must be a lot more to it.
This seems like a reasonable barrier for now. Once machines demonstrate that they should have civil rights, then the issue can be revisited.
How would machines demonstrate that?
In the best timelines, they would politely ask. (I have retrieved the full fictional speech from the Internet Archive, for those who want to read it.)
I’m also curious, but to be honest, I’m not sure if I would want to learn that empirically ;)
Obviously this is talking about UK law and not US law, but in the US the definition of “a person” can be stretched beyond what you’d normally expect.
Legal personhood is slightly needed, that article is missing a lot of the “why” things changed: https://www.upcounsel.com/corporate-personhood
Without it, technically the government can just seize corporate assets as an example.
Also legal personhood != human person even under the law. They are distinct. Note this all is from my laywer drinking buddy but the one time I asked him about it he had a bit of a sigh that the nuances are a lot more complex than “corporations are people under law” like it was some sort of soylent green situation. The Tillman act as an example is a good example of why you want personhood for businesses. Unless we want to not be able to collectively barter as a group I would argue that is a good thing.
Out of curiosity, why is corporate personhood necessary to prevent arbitrary seizure of corporate assets given that a natural person (human) owns the corporation and therefore owns the assets? It seems like that would have been a much simpler way of making that work. So it feels like there must be a lot more to it.