Corporations are People?

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

A family is people, but they are not a person.

 

[Patooka]

Do corporations have social security numbers?

translation: only people have social security numbers, so anything that does not have a social security number is "not people."

There are some people (U.S. citizens) who don't have a social security number (maybe mostly children). So these citizens are "not people"?

Also, what about before social security, back before the 1930s. No one had a social security number, so therefore there were no people prior to social security? That's probably false.

So, not having a social security number cannot be what makes corporations "not people."

Anyway, the premise of "corporations are not people" is that other groups (NONcorporate) are people, and it's only corporations which are "not people." And yet other groups also have no social security number. So if this makes corporations "not people" then you must say that ALL groups are "not people" because all other groups also have no social security number.

Good example: a FAMILY doesn't have a social security number. So therefore,

Families are not people?

So you need to go back to the drawing board. You're still not telling us what it is that makes corporations "not people" -- you have this IMPULSE driving you to say the slogan "corporations are not people" and yet you can't explain why they're not people the same as all other groups.

And even though you might reluctantly be willing to consider that other groups also are "not people," you can't bring yourself to say any other groups are "not people" -- you choke up trying to get those words out. So far no one has been willing to say straightforward

"ALL groups are not people."

Are you a robot? Can a robot feel?

 

[scombrid]

A family is people, but they are not a person.

Run correctly, a family operates as a person. Dad makes all decisions. That’s why women should be allowed to vote. Just ask the GOP.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations vs. NONcorporations

Still no one can say why corporations are "not people" and yet all other groups are "people"

You’re right that groups of individuals — whether formal or informal — retain First Amendment protections.

And corporations are "groups of individuals" -- so they retain 1st Amendment protections. ALL groups are "people" as intended in the 1st Amendment phrase "the right of the people" = the right of individual humans and groups of humans.

That’s because the Constitution protects individuals acting in association.

Which is what a corporation is, i.e., individuals acting in association, as members of a group. Or the group is the association.

When people form a club, attend a party, or gather at a church, they are still exercising individual rights to speech, assembly, and religion.

As the members of a corporation are doing, like any other group. All are "people" exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

But not all these groups are the same -- they are each doing their particular activity, and there might be differing legal conditions on certain of them, maybe particular requirements or responsibilities. All of which can be provided for in the law, without any pretense that they are "not people" and have no 1st Amendment rights. All of them have the basic rights guaranteed to "the people" and enumerated in the 1st Amendment, despite any special terms which might apply to certain of them in their unique situation.

But a corporation is not just a group of people casually associating — it’s . . .

Maybe not, but all groups are covered by the 1st Amendment, including those which are "casually associating" as well as those which are NOT "casually associating" -- nothing in the Constitutional language says that a group is "not people" because it associates casually or noncasually, or that it is not covered by the 1st Amendment if its manner of associating is casual or noncasual. You have to stop making up your own rules, inserting your own conditions based on your personal preferences or impulses. Nowhere does the Constitution make an exception for people or groups whose manner of associating is casual or noncasual.

. . . it's a legal entity created by the state, with . . .

No it is not "created by the state" -- I refuted this already, 2 or 3 times. Virtually all corporations existed BEFORE they incorporated, so that the act of becoming a corporation does not make them an "entity created by the state" -- the corporation, or the entity, existed PRIOR to incorporating. In most cases that already-existing entity made the decision to incorporate, and so changed its status from noncorporate to corporate status. In many/most cases it was already a functioning business entity, and by incorporating this business made some changes to improve itself.

That which is improved is something which already exists in the first place -- it had already been created or had come into existence earlier -- and then becomes better in some way. Becoming better or improving does not mean being created. So stop saying the corporation is an "entity created by the state" -- everything you say after this false premise is negated and falsified by your imposing this false premise.

And I have shown the historical facts that the earliest corporations were entities which existed PRIOR to any action by the state, even existed for centuries. So it was not any action by the state which "created" those corporations. Some even had limited liability in a form which was not due to any state action.

I'll quote my earlier post on this:

Corporations did not exist until gov’t created that legal form of entity. So your analysis is based on a false premise.

No, corporations did exist before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Google search question: When did gov't first create the corporate legal entity?

Google answer:

The modern concept of the corporate legal entity began to develop in the 17th century with chartered companies like the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, which were granted monopolies by governments. However, the establishment of the first modern general incorporation statutes, which allowed for easier formation of corporations and limited liability, primarily occurred in the early to mid-19th century in the United States and Britain.

So the 17th century is when the legal form of the corporation entity first developed. But when did the first corporations develop?

HISTORY of early corporations

What do the facts of history say about the earliest corporations centuries ago? whether they existed first and then became incorporated officially by the state, or whether they did not exist until state law first created the corporation "form of entity"?

Google search question: What is the earliest corporation in history?

Google search answer:

While the term "corporation" often evokes modern-day companies, the earliest known corporate entity is the Honor dels molis del Bazacle, a mill entity in Toulouse, France, constituted in 1418. However, if considering continuously operating businesses, Kongō Gumi, a Japanese construction company founded in 578 AD, is widely recognized as the world's oldest, operating for over 1,400 years before being absorbed by another firm in 2006.

Google search question: Did Honor dels molis del Bazacle have limited liability?

Google answer:

Yes, the Honor dels molis del Bazacle had limited liability, as it was treated as a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as early as the 14th century. This means investors were not directly responsible for the company's debts beyond their investment.

So if you equate "corporation" with limited liability, this also predates the East India Companies, the 17th century, and is something earlier than the first state-created corporations.

The other early "corporation" -- kongo gumi -- did not have limited liability, so maybe was not a "corporation" technically, though "corporation" means much more than just limited liability. This company too had most of the features of the later "corporations" in the 18th & 19th centuries.

Google search question: Was kongo gumi created by the government, or did it exist first before being chartered by government?

Google search answer:

Kongo Gumi was not created by the Japanese government; rather, it was founded in 578 AD by a Korean immigrant named Shigemitsu Kongo, who was invited by Prince Shōtoku to help build Japan's first Buddhist temple, Shitennō-ji. The company then operated as a family-run business for over 1,400 years before becoming a subsidiary of Takamatsu Construction Group in 2006.

But wait -- Was Kongo Gumi even a "corporation"?
Google search question: Was Kongo Gumi a corporation?

Google search answer:

Yes, Kongō Gumi was a corporation, specifically a Japanese construction company specializing in the design, construction, restoration, and repair of shrines, temples, castles, and cultural heritage buildings. Although it was a family-run business for over 1,400 years, it officially became a subsidiary of the Takamatsu Construction Group in 2006.

OK, so here's a real "corporation" from very early, though not having "limited liability" originally, but still a precursor to modern corporations at a time when it had not been created by the state. The above Japanese business became a more modern "corporation" in 2006, but it obviously was not "created" by the government because it already had existed for centuries before becoming an officially-recognized corporation legally.


Here's a different wording of the same question --

Google search question: What was the first corporation?

Google search answer:

While some organizations with corporate-like structures existed earlier, the first modern corporations, specifically those with features like permanent capital, legal personhood, and tradable shares, emerged in the early 17th century, with the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company being the most prominent examples. Earlier forms of corporations, often for public good rather than profit, existed in Europe before this period, such as the Honor dels molis del Bazacle in 1418.

note: "Earlier forms of corporations" PRIOR to the East India Companies and prior to the legally-established corporate form of entity. So originally, the corporations came first, and later governments enacted some controls over them, refashioning them into the modern corporate entities of today.

Google search question: Did the Honor dels molis del Bazacle exist first and then incorporate, or was it created by the government?

Google search answer:

The Honor dels molis del Bazacle existed as a corporate entity before its later nationalization and incorporation into the French national electricity company, EDF, in 1946. It was not created by the government, but rather evolved from earlier, independent milling operations, becoming the earliest known corporate entity with a formal document of incorporation from 1418.

So it's an early corporation which was NOT CREATED BY THE STATE. Rather, it existed first (was "created" earlier) and later became regulated officially by the state. Most businesses are not state entities. A government program like the postal service is a state entity.

But you can claim that the East India Companies were chartered by the state and did not exist prior to this official status being attached to them. So the creation of them was simultaneous to their official incorporation in the state. So you can claim SOME early corporations (not the earliest) maybe were dependent upon their legal status from a state action to create them. However, most corporations do/did not fit this description. So you cannot claim that corporations generally were CREATED by the state, even if some were (probably a small minority of corporations). The East India Companies are not typical examples. If you claim that the IDEA of incorporation was created by the state first, earlier, and this then became a MODEL for all later corporations, that too is false -- even then the earliest-known corporations existed first before later changing into a state-regulated entity which was called "corporation" by the state.

And limited liability also predates the earliest corporations created by the state. So this feature is not exclusive to corporations, or to the state-created corporations, and this earlier existence of a limited liability company proves that this feature was not a creation of the state, but rather that governments in the 17th & 18th centuries borrowed this feature already in existence earlier.

So modern corporations in the U.S. and Europe are not founded originally based on an earlier model created by the state and without which they could not have existed. There are earlier examples than the East India Companies model.


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[bilby]

Virtually all corporations existed BEFORE they incorporated,

But were not, by definition, corporations.

so that the act of becoming a corporation does not make them an "entity created by the state"

Sure it does. Because that was an act, by the state, to make them a corporation.

-- the corporation, or the entity, existed PRIOR to incorporating.

But was not, by definition, a corporation PRIOR to incorporating.

No, corporations did exist before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Obviously they didn't. Companies existed, and some then became corporations. But no corporations existed, or could possibly in any way have existed, before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Similarly, the USA did not exist prior to the Declaration of Independence. That doesn't mean that the continent of North America had a huge void between the 48th parallel and the Rio Grande; All the land that would one day become the USA already existed. But the USA did NOT exist until a government was formed which declared it to exist.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Corporations initiated their own creation.
not a product of government

Virtually all corporations existed BEFORE they incorporated,

But were not, by definition, corporations.

They existed already, so the state did not create them. The state only gave them the name "corporation" and the new corporate status. The State did nothing to improve a corporation other than just granting the new name to it. The state could not "create" something which already existed.

so that the act of becoming a corporation does not make them an "entity created by the state"

Sure it does. Because that was an act, by the state, to make them a corporation.

No, making a change in something is not to "create" it. If the state grants citizenship to someone, that doesn't mean the state "created" a citizen. It changed someone who already existed, but did not "create" that person. If it convicts a criminal, that convict is not "created" by the state. Rather, the state changes that person's status.

The state "creates" an agency, a post office, a school, a road it built, etc. -- those are "creations" by the state. But when the state changes the status of something which already existed, it did not "create" it. It hires a janitor, e.g., making someone into a janitor. But it does not thereby create a janitor. It hires the janitor, changes a non-janitor person into a janitor person. But it's still the same person as before, not a new creation by the state.

-- the corporation, or the entity, existed PRIOR to incorporating.

But was not, by definition, a corporation PRIOR to incorporating.

But it existed prior to incorporating. CREATION is more than just semantics or definitions. If the entity receiving the new corporate label already existed, then it can't be "created" by just giving it a new name. You could say the corporate status is created, but not the entity which becomes a corporation by choosing to change its status.

No, corporations did exist before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Obviously they didn't.

Obviously they did, as I showed earlier. Name an entity which became a corporation and did not exist before it changed its status to the corporate status. For it to change its status it had to exist first, and then it does the procedure to make the change, such as to incorporate. All you can claim is that the corporate status is created by the state, not the corporation, and this status is then assigned to this entity which already existed and had been created long before

And historically the earliest corporations existed first, and later became recognized by the state, or were given the corporate status by the state. I cited the historical facts about this in my previous post #284 (scroll down to "history of early corporations" -- examples of early corporations, in the 15th century and in the 6th century AD), long before they were recognized by the state. The change added some new features to the corporation, or to the entity changing into a corporation, but the change did not CREATE that entity, because this entity existed already.

By changing the corporation, the state did not CREATE that corporation any more than the U.S. government CREATED a native American tribe by granting it recognition. A tribe became officially recognized a sovereign nation by government action, but this government action did not "create" the tribe or nation, which was already there. The tribes existed first and so were not created by gaining this status or recognition. This new name or label they gain is a change a tribe experienced. The tribe existed before experiencing this change, so was not created by this change.

Companies existed, and some then became corporations. But no corporations existed, or could possibly in any way have existed, before gov't created that legal form of entity.

Yes they did exist, even if they were not called "corporations" -- it's just semantics or labels you're talking about. Changing the name of something does not CREATE that something. That same entity did exist earlier and then underwent a change in name, or in recognized status. So the state did not create that entity or that corporation. Any more than it created the Indian tribes as sovereign nations. They were already sovereign nations -- but they were not officially recognized sovereignties. It's rather the government which changes than the object it's recognizing or granting the official status to. The government changes and improves itself when it recognizes an entity which was already there.

Similarly, the USA did not exist prior to the Declaration of Independence.

This is a bad analogy. But even so, the entity later called USA did exist prior to its Declaration of Independence. Just because it wasn't yet called "USA" doesn't mean it did not exist. It had to exist at least a short time prior, because this was a decision made to declare independence, and the one making this decision had to exist before the final Declaration which was decided upon.

That doesn't mean that the continent of North America had a huge void between the 48th parallel and the Rio Grande; All the land that would one day become the USA already existed. But the USA did NOT exist until a government was formed which declared it to exist.

No, it's not clear that a mere declaration creates a country. Rather, what happens is that something exists first, and then a government might declare it to be a country. If this is a group of people there announcing their own nation status, that means that the entity or group already existed and now it's announcing itself, and the nation status begins with this announcement. But even so, the entity becoming a nation did already exist and is not created just by making this announcement.

So the announcement or declaration is not an act which creates the country. You could say it's the final step in the formation process, like the celebration of it and popping the champagne, but this thing becoming a country still had to already exist, and so the announcement is not the creation of it.

But this is a false analogy. For the nation forming, it's only one entity which you're saying creates itself by its own announcement. Which is totally different than a corporation being created by something else -- 2 entities rather than only one. Whether a corporation is created by the state -- one entity being created by another -- is not analogous to whether a nation creates itself by announcing itself. Yet, in both cases the formal act of announcing or recognizing something is not an act of creation. In both cases the entity being recognized has to first exist before the act of recognition or announcing. Even the entity announcing itself with its "Declaration of Independence" still has to exist first, before it issues this Declaration. It first has to decide to take this step, so still it has to exist first, which means that it was created BEFORE it makes the announcement.

In all likelihood any nation announcing itself, or declaring its independence or sovereignty, is an entity which existed for a long period first, BEFORE making its declaration, and it's during this period that it made the decision to become a nation. And that decision had to happen prior to the announcement. It can't be CREATED by the announcement, because by the time the announcement is made it had already done something, in arriving at the decision, meaning it had to already exist.

No matter how you cut it, you can't claim something is created after it already existed. The creation of it has to happen from the beginning of it, not later after it had already existed. And what existed was a certain entity which might change name, by its decision, or by receiving recognition, and so might receive the label "corporation" or "country" or "USA" or other label, but this happens AFTER it had already existed. So this announcement and adoption of a new name or label is not the same as the creation of it.


"The People" create the government.
The government does not create "the People."

This isn't just semantics. The corporation, being an entity in itself, is just as independent and separate from the state as any other group or as any individual. The group exists because it has a function in the world which it did not derive from the government and which is a legitimate part of human activity. The group categorized as corporation can be regulated just as any individuals or groups can be regulated, as needed, but it's entitled to the same basic rights as all other groups and individuals which also are separate entities from the government. A corporation is not part of the government or a creature of the government any more than other groups are.

All the groups are part of "the people" who are to be served by the government. And it's this government which is created, not the individuals or groups ("people") it serves. So "the people" (including all groups of people) created the government, and the government did not create anything except the various government agencies and government programs to serve the people. Corporations are not a government agency or government program.

 

[bilby]

The state only gave them the name "corporation" and the new corporate status.

So, the only way to become a corporation is to be made into one by the state.

You really cannot be this dense; It's just performance art, am I right?

I am not going to bother to even read the rest of your very long post; As I have observed in the past, there is a clear inverse correlation between the length of your posts and their factual accuracy.

You only expound at length when you are in the wrong. So you must know you are wrong. So I needn't pay any attention at all to your argument, as you are already fully aware that it is bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do corporations have social security numbers?

translation: only people have social security numbers, so anything that does not have a social security number is "not people."

Businesses have TINs, which are effectively social security numbers for a business.

 

[Patooka]

Do corporations have social security numbers?

translation: only people have social security numbers, so anything that does not have a social security number is "not people."

Businesses have TINs, which are effectively social security numbers for a business.

Did you notice how you had to use "which are effectively", in that sentence? YMMV. Which is effectively me calling bullshit. Corporations are not and should never be treated like or as people.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What makes a corporation "not people"?

A family is people, but they are not a person.

How is a family people, but a corporation is not?

 

[bilby]

What makes a corporation "not people"?

A family is people, but they are not a person.

How is a family people, but a corporation is not?

A corporation IS people. So is a family.

Neither is a person.

People are not a person. Many is not one. Plural is never singular.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Acknowledgement that "corporations are not people" is a fraud

What makes a corporation "not people"?

A family is people, but they are not a person.

How is a family people, but a corporation is not?

A corporation IS people. So is a family.

Neither is a person.

People are not a person. Many is not one. Plural is never singular.

So then, families are people. And

Corporations are people.


So, Corporations are not people is false.

As also Families are not people is false.


That's a little progress. This means the popular slogan that "corporations are not people" is false. And there's something wrong that so many crusaders, political activists -- especially Left-wing dogmatists and demagogues -- are able to stampede their disciples into such a mindless stampede by preaching this fraudulent slogan.

No one has been able to say why it's only "corporations" which are not people, while all other groups are people. Though they keep preaching this meaningless slogan.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

No one has been able to say why it's only "corporations" which are not people, while all other groups are people. Though they keep preaching this meaningless slogan.

There are many posts that have supplied reasons why corporations are not people. You have chosen to either ignore them, or reply with twisted words.

 

[bilby]

So then, families are people. And

Corporations are people.

Equivocations are fallacious.

 

[Swammerdami]

Google search question: Did Honor dels molis del Bazacle have limited liability?

Google answer:

Yes, the Honor dels molis del Bazacle had limited liability, as it was treated as a legal entity distinct from its shareholders as early as the 14th century. This means investors were not directly responsible for the company's debts beyond their investment.

I'm not sure the operation of 15th-century grain mills at a time when central governments were relatively weak has strong relevance to the thread's topic, but it still might be an interesting topic.

The book by David Le Bris, et al does not seem fully compatible with the glib opinion of Google's Gemini:

... four features of the Toulouse local system favored the emergence of the mill companies. First, primogeniture was not the dominant form of inheritance. As a result, inherited assets were held in joint ownership (pariage)—sometimes by many owners. Second, the law facilitated the seizure of a debtor’s property in order to repay his or her debt. Third, the Capitouls organized an efficient way for third parties to auction properties of a debtor. And fourth, the exchange of properties was considered to be an irrevocable sale. These laws facilitated the growth and survival of the firms at key moments in their histories. The exchange of properties between pariers was used when the original independent mills were merged in the fourteenth century to form the two large mill companies. Following the capital calls on shareholders after the destruction of the mills by flood, the uchaux [partnership shares] of pariers who were not able or willing to cover their share of the mills’ expenses (the talho) were seized and auctioned, providing capital to the firm rather than weighing it down in a lengthy legal dispute.

This MIGHT seem to confirm that a notion of limited liability was applied, BUT since the "corporation" was effectively solven, the unwilling shareholders SHOULD have received value but did NOT. The mention of possible "lengthy legal dispute" supports the view that legal liability was not then a cut-and-dried issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

They don't call it corporate peoplehood. They call it corporate personhood.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's special about "corporations" which makes them "not people"??

Corporations are "not people" because -- because -- uh -- duh --

. . . a corporation is . . . a legal entity created [recognized] by the state, with its own rights, obligations, and legal identity separate from the individuals inside it.

Yes, the same as millions and millions of NONcorporate businesses which also have all that -- i.e., "its own rights, obligations, and legal identity separate" from the individual members -- yes, a business, e.g. a sole proprietorship, usually has a name identity which is recognized separately from the business owner's name. I.e., a fictitious name, which has to be registered, in order for the business to conduct its affairs in that name, rather than having to use the personal name of the business owner, which might be less effective or profitable. Likewise a partnership. A business does not have to be a corporation to have any of the above. Nothing here says what a "corporation" is that makes it "not people."

uh -- well -- duh -- A corporation is "not people" because it --

exists not for expression, but for commerce, and . . .

Who says that's what it exists for? Was this a Papal Bull? the Law of Moses? Where was it decreed what corporations are supposed to exist for (and not for anything else)? When? Where?

Any business, including a corporation, can exist for "expression" -- it can even exist with the intent that "expression" is its main function, even more than "commerce" if it chooses. It does not renounce "expression" as a purpose by choosing to incorporate. Nothing in the law says that a corporation must exist solely for "commerce" and not for "expression" (whatever that means) -- a corporation chooses what it exists for, not the government or anyone's theory about what the purpose of its existence is.

er -- uh -- duh -- OK, but a corporation is "not people" because -- uh --

. . . it’s structured to shield individuals from liability, extend . . .

But there are other forms of limited liability than corporations. LLCs and LLPs are not corporations and yet they include limited liability as a feature.

You're supposed to be telling us what is UNIQUE to corporations, such that they are "not people" while all other groups are people. You can't include anything in this list which also applies to other groups than corporations. So scratch limited liability off the list.

well but -- Corporations are "not people" because they're

. . . structured to shield individuals from liability, extend legal life indefinitely, and enable capital accumulation.

But these are not unique to corporations. There are ways of issuing stock other than in profit-making corporations, and there are many ways a NONcorporate business (and also an informal group) can raise long-term assets and keep these beyond the life of the individual members, so that the group going forward has effective ownership of these ongoing assets, plus also there are forms of capital accumulation possible in a noncorporate business. Other kinds of groups have these features to "shield individuals from liability," or "extend legal life indefinitely, and enable capital accumulation," and yet no one says they're "not people" or that they don't have 1st Amendment rights.


"shield individuals from liability"

Google Search answer:

. . . there are other forms of limited liability besides corporations, most notably the Limited Liability Company (LLC) and the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). LLCs offer owners limited liability protection for business debts, similar to a corporation, but with more flexibility in taxation and management, often taxed like a sole proprietorship or partnership. LLPs are specifically designed for professional service firms, such as lawyers or accountants, and also provide limited liability to their partners.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

• Definition:
  An LLC is a hybrid business structure that combines the limited liability of a corporation with the pass-through taxation and operational flexibility of a partnership or sole proprietorship.
  
  
• Purpose:
  It's popular for small to medium-sized businesses because it shields the owners' (called "members") personal assets from business liabilities while offering simpler operational requirements than a corporation.
  
  
• Taxation:
  LLCs can elect to be taxed as a corporation, or as a partnership or sole proprietorship if they have multiple or single owners, respectively, avoiding the double taxation often associated with corporations.

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

• Definition:
  An LLP is a partnership that provides limited liability protection for its partners.
  
  
• Purpose:
  This structure is specifically used by licensed professionals, such as accountants, doctors, and lawyers, who form a partnership but want to limit their personal liability for the malpractice or errors of other partners.
  
  
• Key Feature:
  While partners in an LLP share in profits and losses like in a traditional partnership, each partner is generally not personally liable for the business's debts or the professional misconduct of other partners.

So limited liability is available in forms other than that of corporations, so this is not unique to corporations and is not something that makes corporations "not people" or superior or privileged over other types of groups or businesses or organizations.

So still we have no explanation what makes corporations "not people" compared to NONcorporate groups or businesses.

____________

"extend legal life indefinitely"

Google Search answer:

. . . some non-corporate structures have perpetuity, particularly trusts and foundations, which are designed to exist indefinitely and hold assets beyond the lives of their original founders. Like corporations, these entities are separate legal structures that can outlast the individuals associated with them, ensuring continuous operation or asset management for future generations or specific purposes.

Perpetual Non-Corporations

• Trusts:
  A trust is a legal arrangement where a person (the grantor) transfers assets to a trustee to hold and manage for the benefit of others (the beneficiaries). Trusts can be structured to last for generations, even after the death of the grantor and beneficiaries, to ensure the family's wealth or specific charitable goals are maintained.
  
  
• Foundations:
  Historically, foundations were established as juridical persons (legal entities) to allow for the collective, perpetual ownership of assets. They were a way to avoid the fragmentation of property through inheritance laws and to ensure assets remained dedicated to a specific purpose or cause indefinitely.

How They Achieve Perpetuity

• Separate Legal Entity:
  Like corporations, trusts and foundations are established as separate legal entities. This separation means the entity continues to exist and function even if its original founders, trustees, or beneficiaries pass away.
• <ignore this fucking dot.
• Purpose-Driven Existence:
  These structures are often created with a long-term goal in mind, such as managing family wealth, supporting specific institutions, or advancing particular charitable causes. The legal framework allows for this purpose to be fulfilled across multiple generations, independent of any single individual's life.

The above shows the real exceptions to the rule that only for-profit corporations have perpetual life. Of course some of these are non-profit corporations. But not all, as there are trusts and other such groups which also have such perpetual life and are NOT corporations. So it's inaccurate to say that perpetual life entities are necessarily corporations.

So perpetual life of the organization is possible several different ways outside that of being a corporation, and therefore this is not a unique feature of corporations which makes them "not people" and special or privileged above everyone else.
____________

"enable capital accumulation"

Google Search answer:

. . . capital can be accumulated outside of corporate structures through various means, including by individuals and families, through the accumulation of financial assets like stocks, bonds, and cryptocurrencies, and by governments. Other forms include social capital (common productive capacity in a society), human capital (skills and knowledge), investment in physical assets like housing and land, and the acquisition of valuable items such as art and gems.

Here are several forms of capital accumulation beyond corporations:

• Individual and Household Capital:
  Individuals can accumulate capital through saving, investing in real estate and financial assets, or accumulating durable goods.
  
  
• Financial Capital:
  This includes assets like stocks, bonds, cryptocurrencies, and other financial instruments, which can be bought and sold for profit.
  
  
• Human Capital:
  Accumulation of human capital involves investment in education and training to increase the skills of the labor force, which can lead to higher earnings.
  
  
• Social Capital:
  This refers to the productive capacity and resources held collectively by a community, rather than by individuals or corporations.
  
  
• Physical Capital:
  Beyond the machines and factories owned by corporations, individuals can own and accumulate tangible assets like housing, machinery, and tools to generate value.
  
  
• Natural Capital:
  This encompasses natural resources like land, minerals, and oil, which can be discovered and accumulated, increasing overall wealth.
  
  
• Public Capital:
  Governments accumulate capital through the state's allocation of resources, funding infrastructure, and collecting taxes, which can then be reinvested for public benefit.
  
  
• Data Capital:
  In the digital economy, platforms accumulate vast amounts of user data, which becomes a form of capital that increases the value of their services and products.

____________

"extend legal life indefinitely"

Google Search answer:

. . . while corporations by definition have perpetual succession, other non-corporate entities like certain foundations, trusts, and even some government entities or non-profit organizations can effectively exist beyond the lives of their founders or owners through legal structures designed to ensure their longevity and continuity of purpose. These entities are often created with a primary goal of managing assets or carrying out a mission over extended periods, separate from the individuals involved.

Here are some examples of non-corporate structures with perpetual existence:

• Foundations:
  These non-profit organizations are established to hold and manage assets for a specific charitable, educational, or religious purpose. Unlike businesses, they don't have owners but rather a governing board or trustees, and their existence is intended to be indefinite, carrying out the founder's philanthropic mission beyond their lifetime.
  
  
• Trusts:
  Certain types of trusts can be designed to last for generations, holding assets and distributing them according to the settlor's wishes over a long period. The trustee manages the assets, and the trust's legal life continues even as beneficiaries and trustees change.
  
  
• Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships (but with limitations):
  While generally tied to the owner(s)' lifespan, some structured partnerships or sole proprietorships can have mechanisms, such as a buy-sell agreement, that are designed to continue the business for a designated period after an owner's death or exit. However, their perpetuity is not as inherent as that of corporations or foundations.
  
  
• Governmental and Municipal Entities:
  Many governmental bodies, such as states, cities, and public institutions, possess a legal existence that transcends the lives of any specific officeholder or administrator.

In essence, the key to achieving perpetuity outside of a corporation is the creation of a formal, separate legal or organizational structure that can outlast the individuals who created or participate in it.

So it's inaccurate to say corporations are uniquely "structured to shield individuals from liability, extend legal life indefinitely, and enable capital accumulation." It's true that corporations can be described this way -- but so can NONcorporations, i.e., these same features are found in other kinds of groups also, in groups or organizations or businesses which are not corporations. It doesn't tell us why only corporations are "not people" and are not covered by the 1st Amendment protection of free speech and free press and free assembly etc.

The question isn’t whether the people in a corporation have rights — they do. The issue is whether the corporation itself, as a separate entity, should have the same political speech rights as a natural person, including the ability to spend unlimited money to influence elections. That goes . . .

And the answer is

YES, the corporation should have the same political speech rights as a multibillionaire like Elon Musk has.

E.g., why shouldn't the ACLU or Planned Parenthood have the same right to spend unlimited money to influence voters that Elon Musk has?


(this Wall of Text to be continued)

 

[Elixir]

Nothing here says what a "corporation" is that makes it "not people."

A group of people is not a person. A sole proprietorship is not a corporation.
Your wall-o-text is an epic FAIL.

 

[bilby]

Nothing here says what a "corporation" is that makes it "not people."

A group of people is not a person. A sole proprietorship is not a corporation.
Your wall-o-text is an epic FAIL.

And a legal entity can only be created by the state. A company that is later incorporated does not become a corporation until it is incorporated.

As usual, the length of his posts is in inverse proportion to their value.

When he can actually support his claims, he's as succinct and brief as anyone else.

 

[Elixir]

the length of his posts is in inverse proportion to their value.

Heh. I always wonder if prolixity is an intentionally obscurant tactic, or just an attempt to mask the writer’s confusion.