The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
There is a critical difference between most corporations and people, which makes them far more dangerous - for a corporation the "only" goal is profit. In colloquial terms, corporations are "psychopaths".
Corporations being psychopathic can be very useful for a number of applications (such as efficient resource allocation and rapid economic growth), especially given a regulatory system that ensures that the pursuit of profit provides utility to the commons. It's so useful, that we even require corporations by law to single-mindedly pursue profit - if they didn't, and e.g. your social security benefits were invested in those corporations, there would be no recourse if they spent their money negligently.
Unfortunately, when corporations amass enough power to control the regulatory system you have major issues, as there is nothing to control their "psycopathic" tendencies. This is a crucial reason why "corporate personhood" and other forms of corporate power should have limits - in order to keep our checks and balances functioning. If we fail to do this, profit maximizing entities will gain more and more control over the resources available to human beings.
So, while many aspects of corporate personhood are wonderful and convenient, we need to be very careful what powers corporations are granted.
[yes, I gloss over some details to keep this short: fiduciary duty conditions, clinical definition of psychopathy,..; but these don't critically affect the main thesis as far as I am aware]
I thought it was surrounding the DMV definition for "Person" from the DMV code and not corporation personhood. The defendant did have a thing against personhood but seems the defense was that signs were legally vague in accordance to the DMVs definition of person.
470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
Yes this is great, but it ignores the fact that a corporation is more than a group of people. It enjoys considerable legal benefits in the form of protection of its owners from various liabilities. In the US they also tend to enjoy considerable tax and other legal benefits.
These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American.
The beef is:
>people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively
A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A corporation is also a group of people who get together and petition their government for special treatment. This is not a bad thing as it is basically what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But, if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that.
I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity.
I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car regardless of the availability of the carpool lane.
If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.
Actually, insofar as the goal is to reduce cars on the road, it seems entirely sensible to me to exclude children -- or anyone without a drivers license -- from counting towards the passenger threshold.
I'd be all for having to produce N valid licenses in the car to avoid the ticket, rather than N human bodies. (That also neatly sidesteps the issue of corporate personhood.)
All unlicensed passengers would create more traffic by taking a taxi alone. I think the only ones not allowed in the carpool lane should be a taxi with one passenger (of course, in addition to the lone drivers).
However, you could extend the logic further by saying that a lone taxi driver looking for a better fare causing a second taxi to pick up the unlicensed driver causes more traffic than a taxi with one passenger. So I've neatly saved the current carpool lane rules.
Not entirely. If you're taking two children, then it's better than two adults driving the children individually. But if it's only one child, there's no alternative.
The law has distinguished between Persons (which can include corporations) and Natural Persons (which does not) since corporations were invented. The latter is even a term of art in the law. Though I haven't researched it, it's probably even mentioned specifically in the California Vehicle Code.
The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of his time to even remember.
Indeed, the California Vehicle Code does mention "Natural Person" as follows:
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED
Application of Definitions
100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these definitions shall govern the construction of this code.
...
Person
470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
Amended Ch. 1010, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.
How does the carpool lane relieve traffic congestion? If people could actually use that lane instead of it being some kind of elitist lane (which is what it feels like, I drive it in all the time (family)), traffic would be better.
The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave' problem.
This whole case has been ridiculous from the start. It was pretty obvious from the start that this case wasn't going to end in the defendants favour, I honestly don't know why this guy has decided to waste the courts time with this. A stack of papers is not a corporation, the corporation itself might own the papers but paper does not encompass an entity. It's a carpool lane violation, not murder why can't this guy just cop it on the chin and pay the fine? It's going to cost him a lot of money in legal fees if he appeals this.
If this guy wants to waste money so easily, the least he could do is perhaps consider donating some money to a charity. If he wants to throw his money away, at least he'd be helping people.
Huh? He did it intentionally to waste time and apparently has money to spare on the fight. Either way, there is now legal precedent at odds with the concept of corporate personhood. Presumably he wants this concept to go away and is now one step closer.
[+] [-] NoPiece|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
--
The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.
[+] [-] avivo|13 years ago|reply
Corporations being psychopathic can be very useful for a number of applications (such as efficient resource allocation and rapid economic growth), especially given a regulatory system that ensures that the pursuit of profit provides utility to the commons. It's so useful, that we even require corporations by law to single-mindedly pursue profit - if they didn't, and e.g. your social security benefits were invested in those corporations, there would be no recourse if they spent their money negligently.
Unfortunately, when corporations amass enough power to control the regulatory system you have major issues, as there is nothing to control their "psycopathic" tendencies. This is a crucial reason why "corporate personhood" and other forms of corporate power should have limits - in order to keep our checks and balances functioning. If we fail to do this, profit maximizing entities will gain more and more control over the resources available to human beings.
So, while many aspects of corporate personhood are wonderful and convenient, we need to be very careful what powers corporations are granted.
[yes, I gloss over some details to keep this short: fiduciary duty conditions, clinical definition of psychopathy,..; but these don't critically affect the main thesis as far as I am aware]
[+] [-] adrr|13 years ago|reply
470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc470.htm
[+] [-] MartinCron|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedanieru|13 years ago|reply
These are all benefits provided by the US government, and by extension every American.
The beef is:
>people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively
A corporation is more than a group of people acting collectively. A corporation is also a group of people who get together and petition their government for special treatment. This is not a bad thing as it is basically what allows any company of more than a handful of people to even exist. But, if that special treatment comes with strings attached (i.e. restricting what that group of people are allowed to do with their collective resources and in the name of that corporation), I personally do not take issue with that.
I have no problem with a group of people freely getting together and wreaking havoc on the American political system. In fact, I encourage it. But I don't think everyone else must subsidize their activity.
[+] [-] btilly|13 years ago|reply
However the judge's reasoning is very weak.
I frequently drive in the carpool with one or more children who cannot drive in the car. By the judge's reasoning, this should not be allowed because our driving together does nothing to relieve congestion. Why not? Because I'm the only person present who is legally allowed to drive, so we'd be in one car regardless of the availability of the carpool lane.
If this was indeed the reasoning, I hope that this argument is made in the appeal.
[+] [-] pinko|13 years ago|reply
I'd be all for having to produce N valid licenses in the car to avoid the ticket, rather than N human bodies. (That also neatly sidesteps the issue of corporate personhood.)
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
However, you could extend the logic further by saying that a lone taxi driver looking for a better fare causing a second taxi to pick up the unlicensed driver causes more traffic than a taxi with one passenger. So I've neatly saved the current carpool lane rules.
[+] [-] crazygringo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otterley|13 years ago|reply
The judge was probably just too busy and irritated by this complete waste of his time to even remember.
[+] [-] ghshephard|13 years ago|reply
DIVISION 1. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED Application of Definitions 100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these definitions shall govern the construction of this code.
...
Person
470. "Person" includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
Amended Ch. 1010, Stats. 1994. Effective January 1, 1995.
[Edit: Full Vehicle Code here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/veh_code.pdf ]
[+] [-] dman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monochromatic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] borlak|13 years ago|reply
The times traffic IS bad the damn carpool lane is just as backed up as the other lanes. And then there's the whole problem of needing to get off the lane, which you can't always do (you can only get off at specific spots), and then you're swerving across 4+ lanes of traffic causing a classic 'shockwave' problem.
[+] [-] gnud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
If this guy wants to waste money so easily, the least he could do is perhaps consider donating some money to a charity. If he wants to throw his money away, at least he'd be helping people.
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malkia|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|13 years ago|reply
Arizona precedent follows the exact same lines as that FAQ answer: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/01/woman_womans_fe.html
I therefore expected the same reasoning to apply here. But the article doesn't say that the judge followed that line of reasoning. Which surprised me.
[+] [-] nness|13 years ago|reply