> > I always thought that corporations were legal > fictions. Legal fictions are > legally created entities aren't they? They may be > more than this but they > certainly are not less.
"Fictions" suggests they are not real. Here is an example of a legal fiction: The notion that that in suing a state official acting in his official capacity you are not really suing the state, which is forbidden under the 1th Amendment as interpreted by the S.Ct. I ran into this problem today. I am trying to process through my new firm's conflicts check process -- to make sure we are not representing and suing the same people -- two pro bono habeas corpus cases in which I represented convicted murderers. The nominal defendant is the prison warden. My secretary reported back that they had to do conflicts checks on the warden. I said, that can't be right. The warden doesn't care; we are really suing the state of Illinois. It and not the warden is the real party in interest. Anyway, corporations are not fictions. They are are real as many people. Imdividuals, I mean. Sure, corps have some of the powers of persons -- contracting, property ownership, suing and being sued, etc. That did not make them persons any more than the fact that I have some of Michael Jordan;s powers (a very few) makes me a basketball player. But I am not speaking of metaphysucal personhood, only of legal personhood. It was a big jump when the S.Ct said that corps were persons under the 14th Amendment, no point in pretending otherwise, even if the other things were true of them. The question of whether corps are fictions is diffewrent from whether they a reducible to interlocking series of contracts,a nd more interesting. The later view is legally an obvious error. The former is potentially an interesting metaphysical error. You are right of course that the law can fail to recognize classes of individual as (full) persons in a legal sense, and has done so. May still, as in denying gays the right to marry in most states. I am not sure what your point is here, though. jks The problem is not claiming > that corporations are > legal fictions but in claiming that as such they are > not some separate > entity but a shorthand way of referring to > interlocking contracts between > individuals the very point that you seem to be > making. However your point > has nothing to do with corporations not being legal > fictions. > > > >. . . > > > > But surely it is essential to treat corporations as > having at least some of > the rights of individuals. Are you going to deny > corporations the right to > own property, sign contracts, pay taxes, sue and be > sued, all capacities of > individuals? Whether or not there is some special > legal recognition of > corporations as persons any legal system will surely > want to give > corporations rights such as these.. > > . . . > Of course for corporations to be persons under > the law, the law must say > that they are. But this is true of individuals too. > There was a time when > women werent persons and slaves were not either as > far as their legal > status was concerned. To be an individual person > does not entail being a > legal person. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
