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.