[lit-ideas] Re: Further to Economics Not
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:06:42 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011, 17:22
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Further to Economics Not
Andy wrote:
An example popped into my head about how mythical the economic system is, the
very fact that corporations are treated as people under the law. A corporation
is a person, isn't that unbelievable? They have all the protections, none of
the liabilities.
They don't have all of the protections of a real person.
__________
To which might be added (perhaps obviously): neither is it the case that they
have none of the liabilities of an individual person [e.g. such as to discharge
debts, perform their contractual obligations, not act negligently].
The overall rights and wrongs of 'corporate law' is somewhat more than an email
topic, but whatever the failings of the current law would not necessarily argue
for restricting legal 'personhood' to human individuals - in fact, the
consequences of such a restriction would likely be dire and unacceptable. To
argue for such a restriction because it would bring the law into line with
"gravity", or otherwise rid the law of some sense of artificiality, seems naive
and misplaced. Not even the legal concept of the 'personhood' of indivdual
persons can be derived from natural facts or freed from some artificiality.
The legal notions of 'possession' and of 'ownership' also go well beyond the
kind of
intuitive or primary notions we might have of these: property may be
'ownerless' in the several senses [for example, where the beneficial
entitlement to it is held in abeyance until decided upon some condition or
event which can only be ascertained in the future], yet that may not mean it is
'ownerless' in every sense [for example, the sense of being abandoned and there
for the taking].
Generalised attacks based on pointing to some imperfection here or there rarely
amounts to a properly considerered criticism which should be addressed to the
specifics of an area of law when understood against its place within some
overall system.
An attack on the anomalies and injustices of 'corporate law' might be best
freed from thinking the solution is simply restricting the concept of legal
personhood so as to exclude 'corporations'. On the same basis we might get rid
of all our legal problems by getting rid of all our law: but other problems
would be
created in their place and this is a Pyrrhic approach to reform or
problem-solving.
Nor does it help advance discussion to make plainly false allegations like
"They have all of...and none of...", that are wrong on both counts.
Donal
London
Other related posts:
