In circles of occult technology, a corporation would simply be understood as an "Egregore". Which is itself might be considered a slave of its constituents, but no more than they are a slave of the collective will.
Am I a slave to my cells? Are my cells a slave of 'me' (whatever 'me' is)?
Lots of irrelevant mental gymnastics on the ethics of it. In terms of the idea of emergent behavior, I think this is well understood that companies have this kind of personality. Emergent behavior is also the cornerstone of the invisible hand.
This also extends to things like social networks. For example I think that Twitter the entity convinced Elon Musk to purchase it (so it could evolve as an entity outside of previous constraints it had, see also Wintermute), and doing so was an emergent action.
I think a corporation is as much a person as Voltron is a person.
A person’s constitute components don’t have higher-levels of consciousness, but a person does. Whereas for a corporation, the situation is reversed—the constituent components have higher-level consciousness, but the corporation does not by itself.
I agree with the premise that a corporation then is some kind of slave, or thrall, at the command a committee of wizards. So, a zombie in some sense.
Another similarity to note is that the will and nature of a corporation changes depending on its most influential constituent components, which is similar in nature to how a human person might change due to a disease or different mental state.
Declaring corporations "legal persons" does not make them actual persons. Congress has the power to declare automobiles or refrigerators as legal persons if they choose. This would not magically grant those items any form of consciousness or free will. And a slave without free will or consciousness is not a slave.
Some people (apparently including "many philosophers") confuse the constituent parts with the whole. They reason that since a corporation is created by people, and made up (partly) of people, they must share sentience with people. But people participate in many social structures, including dinner parties, marching bands, and mobs, which are not collectively sentient and clearly not "persons" in any meaningful sense. At best, human organizations operate cognitively at the level of insects, and perhaps not even that high up the evolutionary tree.
> I have come to the belief that corporations are persons not only in law, but are persons also in reality. Their legal personalities are only the recognition of real, underlying, group personalities.
The author's (along with "many philosophers'") entire line of argument is argument from analogy. She lists many aspects of corporations that are similar to aspects possessed by humans and then conclude they are the same thing.
The same argument could be made with humans and ducks and it would be just as valid.
The author's view that corporations are actually people is becoming more common not because it is rational, but because it is profitable for corporations to be able to claim various kinds of personal rights.
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] threadAm I a slave to my cells? Are my cells a slave of 'me' (whatever 'me' is)?
This also extends to things like social networks. For example I think that Twitter the entity convinced Elon Musk to purchase it (so it could evolve as an entity outside of previous constraints it had, see also Wintermute), and doing so was an emergent action.
A person’s constitute components don’t have higher-levels of consciousness, but a person does. Whereas for a corporation, the situation is reversed—the constituent components have higher-level consciousness, but the corporation does not by itself.
I agree with the premise that a corporation then is some kind of slave, or thrall, at the command a committee of wizards. So, a zombie in some sense.
Another similarity to note is that the will and nature of a corporation changes depending on its most influential constituent components, which is similar in nature to how a human person might change due to a disease or different mental state.
Some people (apparently including "many philosophers") confuse the constituent parts with the whole. They reason that since a corporation is created by people, and made up (partly) of people, they must share sentience with people. But people participate in many social structures, including dinner parties, marching bands, and mobs, which are not collectively sentient and clearly not "persons" in any meaningful sense. At best, human organizations operate cognitively at the level of insects, and perhaps not even that high up the evolutionary tree.
The author's (along with "many philosophers'") entire line of argument is argument from analogy. She lists many aspects of corporations that are similar to aspects possessed by humans and then conclude they are the same thing.
The same argument could be made with humans and ducks and it would be just as valid.
The author's view that corporations are actually people is becoming more common not because it is rational, but because it is profitable for corporations to be able to claim various kinds of personal rights.