SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chesterton's Fence: A Lesson in Second Order Thinking:
A core component of making great decisions is understanding the rationale behind previous decisions. If we don't understand how we got "here," we run the risk of making things much worse.
When we seek to intervene in any system created by someone, it's not enough to view their decisions and choices simply as the consequences of first-order thinking because we can inadvertently create serious problems. Before changing anything, we should wonder whether they were using second-order thinking. Their reasons for making certain choices might be more complex than they seem at first. It's best to assume they knew things we don't or had experience we can't fathom, so we don't go for quick fixes and end up making things worse.
Second-order thinking is the practice of not just considering the consequences of our decisions but also the consequences of those consequences. Everyone can manage first-order thinking, which is just considering the immediate anticipated result of an action. It's simple and quick, usually requiring little effort. By comparison, second-order thinking is more complex and time-consuming. The fact that it is difficult and unusual is what makes the ability to do it such a powerful advantage.
Second-order thinking will get you extraordinary results, and so will learning to recognize when other people are using second-order thinking. To understand exactly why this is the case, let's consider Chesterton's Fence, described by G. K. Chesterton himself as follows:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
Chesterton's Fence is a heuristic inspired by a quote from the writer and polymath G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book, The Thing. It's best known as being one of John F. Kennedy's favored sayings, as well as a principle Wikipedia encourages its editors to follow. In the book, Chesterton describes the classic case of the reformer who notices something, such as a fence, and fails to see the reason for its existence. However, before they decide to remove it, they must figure out why it exists in the first place. If they do not do this, they are likely to do more harm than good with its removal. In its most concise version, Chesterton's Fence states the following:
Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.
Chesterton went on to explain why this principle holds true, writing that fences don't grow out of the ground, nor do people build them in their sleep or during a fit of madness. He explained that fences are built by people who carefully planned them out and "had some reason for thinking [the fence] would be a good thing for somebody." Until we establish that reason, we have no business taking an ax to it. The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is. Otherwise, we may end up with unintended consequences: second- and third-order effects we don't want, spreading like ripples on a pond and causing damage for years.
[...] Chesterton's Fence is not an admonishment of anyone who tries to make improvements; it is a call to be aware of second-order thinking before intervening. It reminds us that we don't always know better than those who made decisions before us, and we can't see all the nuances to a situation until we're intimate with it. Unless we know why someone made a decision, we can't safely change it or conclude that they were wrong.
The first step before modifying an aspect of a system is to understand it. Observe it in full. Note how it interconnects with other aspects, including ones that might not be linked to you personally. Learn how it works, and then propose your change.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @12:08PM (104 children)
This ignores a few realities of the modern world. First, fences can be erected frivolously when one has access to other peoples' resources. There's a fair bit of infrastructure (such as bridges to nowhere) that upon completion would be most productive in the long run, if it were completely leveled instantly. Obviously, not starting the projects in the first place would be even better, but at least, destroying truly worthless infrastructure means you don't need to maintain it.
Second, new things evolve all the time, stuff happens, and by the time it gets to choosing whether to keep or ax the fence, the knowledge may no longer be around. Or some of the effects are invisible like opportunity costs. You can't determine what the second and third-order effects are until you remove the fence and sometimes not even then.
Finally, resistance to change can be strong enough or time scales long enough that such deliberate proposals can't be implemented. If the situation makes it so that proper Chestertonian deliberation takes more than a human lifetime, it becomes very hard to implement changes since they need to be done over generational time scales. But just destroying the fence can take far less time. You're left with the broken choice of change without understanding the future, or not changing. I think that current medical regulation falls in that category (see this recent story [soylentnews.org] for a great example). The risks of novel medical treatments killing people are fairly common. But so is death, which at this point fundamentally results from a lack of viable treatments for a huge variety of illnesses and biological dysfunction. How do you consider second+ order effects, when you probably won't ever live to see them? Will we see a net win in 500 years, if we slack on certain aspects of clinical testing? Or will it just make the situation worse?
But having said that, I find myself on the other side quite often, for example, concerning a fair bit of economic infrastructure. For example, I still don't see a reason to reverse corporate personhood in large part because I think the virtues of delegating responsibility, of protecting the rights of people involved with a corporation, and even of the many roles that corporations play in our world (often well outside of the business world) are vastly understated by the detractors.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rigrig on Sunday May 03 2020, @12:55PM (6 children)
The point is that there was a reason: fences don't just pop into existence by itself.
It might not have been a good reason, or it might not be valid anymore. In which case it is good to tear down the fence.
But you shouldn't go tearing down fences just because you don't know the reason they were put up.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:33PM (4 children)
That's not saying much since reasons are easy to come by even for the pop ups and fits of madness (which contrary to Chesterton's assertion are way too common in today's world). My point is that it can take extremely little reason to put up massive structures.
And what happens when you can't determine the reason for a fence? Sometimes the only way to find out the consequences of removing a fence are by doing so.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:46PM (3 children)
Then at least eliminate as many possibilities as is reasonable... Research the possible unintended consequences of removing fences (seasonal rabbit population surges, soil erosion, local laws on public rights of way....)
Otherwise, your reasoning is heading towards "because there might not be a reason for the fence, let's assume that there is no reason. "What could possibly go wrong?" should never be a rhetorical question.
I think the moral of this story is that you can't cure simplistic thinking by writing simplistic rules/metaphors. Of course there will be some reasonable limit to the amount of effort that is appropriate to put into hunting "unknown unknowns" - depending on whether the "fence" is literally a single fence across a single field that you can rebuild in an afternoon, a national law that will take years to re-instate if you get it wrong or a bolt on a nuclear reactor saying "do not remove this bolt".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:35AM (2 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday May 04 2020, @02:02PM (1 child)
No, the point is that you should expend more effort thinking about possible indirect consequences of removing the fence and less effort trying to pick pedantic holes in what is only a convenient metaphor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:33AM
Don't forget - people might still rebuild it for the same bad reasons.
And what's a bad reason to most people might be a perfectly legitimate reason to them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:09PM (9 children)
Delegating responsibility into a black hole / bankruptcy where the actual human actors can (and often do) spring up days later in structurally identical new corporations is not a virtue.
Corporations do play huge and tremendously valuable roles in society, even occasionally virtuous ones. People, with personal responsibility, generally behave more virtuously when they have their own skin in the game.
Any radical step-change in societal structures will be unpleasant and costly, as such corporations are deeply entrenched and a sudden erasure or shift of their structures would be tremendously unpleasant for most people - however, evolving them away from the "get out of jail free" card they have become should be a goal of anyone who isn't tapped directly into the less-than virtuous liability shield they provide. Frivolous and vexatious lawsuits are their own problem that should be solved simultaneously or before erasure of corporate liability shields - while those liability shields are necessary due to the inherent problems of trial by jury selected from the masses, they are overly protective and permit all manner of evil behavior by those able to afford corporate protection - exactly the kind of thing that trial by jury was purported to protect against.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:46PM (8 children)
Neither is a whole fully described by looking at a small part of it.
Nor is mischaracterizing the problem. The alleged "get out of jail free" card is not a problem with corporations. The liability shield goes away when you committed the crime.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 03 2020, @04:14PM (7 children)
In practice, corporations shield their beneficiaries from more criminal liability than all direct-actor crimes, by a wide margin. Those who are stolen from are unable to pursue the criminals in large part due to the asymmetrical nature of the relationship: David vs Goliath^10.
Just two of a plethora of examples that has been brought out over the past decades:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/18/news/economy/wage-theft-workers/index.html [cnn.com]
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-forms-theft-workers/ [epi.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:32AM (4 children)
How? You don't actually mention an example of that in your links. It's not the corporate structure, it's the law. They don't treat wage theft like theft. You'd have the same problem with any sort of other business structure, which I might add, probably make up a large portion of the wage theft mentioned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 04 2020, @03:12AM (3 children)
If managers (the ones making the wage payment/non payment decisions) were directly exposed for wage theft violations instead of being protected by the corporate shield, that would change behaviors.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:39AM (2 children)
They'd be protected in the same way by any other business structure too.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 04 2020, @01:04PM (1 child)
Right off the top of my head: independent consultancy (which currently has no wage protections) would expose "management" to liability to wage protection violations if such existed in that realm.
Small time contractors and their subs are forever at each others' throats in small claims court over breaches of contract. Not that that's a good thing, but it's another example of David vs. Goliath^0.5 having an actual chance of justice whereas David vs. Goliath^10 has none. That ^10 factor isn't just because the companies are big, it's because they are able to effectively shield their individual actors under the corporate umbrella.
I've never had a dickwad manager actually attempt wage theft on me (though I have had quite a number of dickwad managers over the years, a minority, but a much larger minority than should be.) However, when I have had individual actors pull outright illegal bullshit under a corporate name, the corporation has come together with legal representation, lies (same thing, I suppose), and solidarity to protect themselves from us - then a short time later fire the individual bad actors, not justice for me but something, I suppose.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:03PM
Sounds like the top of your head isn't worth much then.
Needless to say, I don't buy that in the least. There's nothing there relevant to corporations. It's just large business versus individual dynamics.
And yet, you have nothing to say about how that would be any different under any other business structure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:44AM (1 child)
To me this is a good example:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-230696/ [rollingstone.com]
Oh yeah normal transaction, couldn't possibly be money laundering...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:49AM
In contrast: https://www.wired.com/2013/03/alfred-anaya/ [wired.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:26PM (1 child)
"Build the Wall"
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:50PM
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday May 03 2020, @01:52PM (1 child)
It doesn't assume there was a good reason. It says that you need to find out the reason so you can evaluate whether it was good or not.
Even if your position was just that you hate fences, it can help your case to find out that the original reason is no longer relevant or that the fence utterly fails at its stated purpose.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:19PM
Consider this quote:
My point there is that fence building can happen without reason. It can indeed grow out of the ground (that is, emerge through no one's intent - though lack of intent doesn't mean all that much!) or through someone's madness. Even the more basic assumptions need not hold.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:17PM (43 children)
Corporate personhood is very much the same as Democrat superdelegates. They can swing a vote without being accountable to anyone, or they can influence political and economic decisions without being accountable to anyone.
Both need to die.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @02:23PM (36 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 03 2020, @03:24PM (35 children)
Sorry, corporate personhood is accountability.
Precisely the opposite. The corporation and its officers should suffer the full consequences of their actions. Corporate personhood and limited liability let them off the hook.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:54PM (34 children)
So right here, we have corporate personhood entering your viewpoint, by attributing actions to corporations. Your own mind betrays you here.
To answer your question, why do you think it's not already true? If I incorporate before I start ax murdering people, I still will suffer the full consequences of the law when I get caught. If I'm pulling some "Will No One Rid Me of This Meddlesome Priest?" act, I'd be just as responsible for the consequences under any other business structure as I would under corporations. It doesn't protect me.
There's nothing about corporate personhood that allows someone to evade punishment for crime.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @12:29AM (33 children)
Then what is the purpose of granting it personhood? Can it give consent without the officer's say so? What advantage does it grant over the natural person? What is a corporation without people? Are its offspring given childhood? You should give personhood to animals first.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:08AM (32 children)
To constrain government abuse. Hence why I called corporate personhood accountability for government not the corporation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37AM (31 children)
What kind of government abuse? Need examples
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:53AM (30 children)
In recent times, we have Hobby Lobby [wikipedia.org] and Citizens United [wikipedia.org] against abusive government decrees to take away the rights of corporation members to speak and exercise their freedom of religion.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @01:16PM (29 children)
Bigotry is not religious "freedom", it is simple bigotry that should not be tolerated. Fuck Hobby Lobby.
A charter is a license, a privilege, granted by the state, it is not a person.
The state did overstep in some ways, by actually trying to take over the college.
Corporations are not people, and do not deserve equal treatment as natural persons (the individual). There has to be a price for privileges such as limited liability, etc, that real people don't have.
I'm ok with Citizens United. Corporations can spend all they want on a candidate. The guy that takes the money should be the focus. If people don't like bribery, they should quit reelecting people who take bribes. It can hardly be more obvious.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @01:58PM (28 children)
Fortunately, the court case wasn't about enforcing bigotry.
You're not getting it. Even privileges should be granted impartially. The ability of the state to deny privileges should be as controlled as everything else is concerning the state. It's too great a power to let them have. Finally, you apparently haven't noticed, but corporate personhood is not personhood. Corporations aren't legally persons. It's not even an issue. Instead, they are treated similarly to people in order to protect the rights of the people who comprise the corporation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @02:13PM (27 children)
Fortunately, the court case wasn't about enforcing bigotry.
Yes it was, plain and simple. Your denials only reflect your own bigotry.
Instead, they are treated similarly to people in order to protect the rights of the people who comprise the corporation.
Wrong, it's to grant special *get out of jail free* cards for criminal behavior to the privileged few. To treat them similarly is to subject them to the same rules as the rest of us. The charter is a shield from prosecution. Fuck that!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:24PM (26 children)
You have yet to explain the mechanics of how that claim is supposed to work. I'll note instead that there is no such *get out of jail free* card coming from corporate personhood.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @02:37PM (25 children)
Already explained to you in a different post. The heist of 2007-08 is the perfect example of *too rich to punish*. In this year's great bank robbery, nobody (least of all, you) even wants to see the thief when looking right at him. This is ongoing in the entire financial industry. Only the small fish get fried.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:41PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:42PM (23 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:43PM
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37PM (2 children)
Small fish. All whitewashed away. The bosses skated
And how many people got their houses back?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:55PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:12PM
Not at all. That's all in your mind. Your friends walked away with all the goods, and they are doing it again right now.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @04:40PM (18 children)
Oh, and look at the pitiful conviction rates. Yeah, they really tried hard
Please, stop yer shillin'
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:58PM (17 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:16PM (16 children)
Yeah, it's intentionally sloppy and incompetent prosecution. Crooked as can be, and you support them. What a shame...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:29PM (15 children)
And your evidence for this new claim is?
In any case, it doesn't support your original assertion way, way back when that corporate personhood was a "special *get out of jail free* card". Time to move on.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:35PM (14 children)
No new claims. Your friends skated. Be happy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:50PM (13 children)
Then we went sliding to the non sequitur of mortgage fraud associated with the 2007-2008 real estate crisis. It's a non sequitur because that was one of the many times you failed to show any connection to your claims about corporate personhood. You also made the claim that no one was prosecuted. I provided evidence of 2015 such prosecutions in the US. Then you evolved your claim to two, claiming both that "big fish" weren't convicted and that the prosecutions were "shoddy". Both claims weren't backed by even the slightest effort at providing evidence.
Now, you're saying that the new claims aren't new. Well, here's your ass back. Try to take better care of it next time.
Please research your claims before you make them instead of wasting my time having to make elementary rebuttals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:55PM
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @05:58PM (10 children)
You provide no support for your claims. They are simple lies that you keep spreading.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @06:10PM (9 children)
Like the 2015 prosecutions and the 650+ and counting convictions? And your numerous posts are ample support for the observation that you have yet to come up with evidence supporting the claim that corporate personhood somehow enables corporate wrongdoing.
Truth is an absolute defense.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @06:37PM (8 children)
Means nothing. Strictly ceremonial, for show only, and like I said, small fish.
Truth is an absolute defense.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be here arguing against it.
And you still have yet to show cause for corporate personhood. You just want to extend special privileges not given to the natural person.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @01:12AM (7 children)
Making excuses.
A history of government misdeeds against corporations doesn't count for some reason? I recall providing that per your request.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @01:35AM (6 children)
A history of government misdeeds against corporations doesn't count for some reason?
Nope. Find another way. A corporation is run by people. Make them pay for the crime and revoke the charter
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:59AM (5 children)
What should the laws be for revoking that charter? The whole point of corporate personhood is to restrain the terrible power of the state. All I hear here is babble about revoking charters, none about the important things. Sure, corporations are run by people and those people will often commit evil acts. That's why we have laws. There's nothing here to address that hasn't already been addressed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @03:24AM (4 children)
There is no need for corporate personhood. It is plain bullshit. A corporation isn't a person any more than a dishwasher is.
And you, are just a shill. Having fun yet?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:05PM (3 children)
Already addressed. Government abuse is why it exists. Why can't you get that?
So what? Corporate personhood != personhood. Nobody is pretending that corporations are people.
Because? You done saying stupid things?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:24PM (2 children)
Already addressed. Government abuse is why it exists.
Wrong. You have addressed nothing. Corporate personhood is abuse by the corporation's people to stay out of jail by evading liability for their criminal acts. Why do you defend and shill for criminals?? Are you one also? Do you want to be one? You vicariously living their lives wishing you were the wolf of Wall Street? Your position is insane.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 05 2020, @03:06PM (1 child)
And yet, you can't show a case where that happens. Seriously, put up or shut up. I've shown multiple cases where the corporate personhood legal fiction was essential to protecting the organization from government abuses.
Because erosion of freedom is like that. They go after the unpopular people first. That includes criminals even when they actually are criminals. It's folly to destroy a democracy just because there are criminals in the world.
Back at you on that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 05 2020, @05:20PM
Your "examples" are lies. You only tell lies
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday May 03 2020, @05:08PM (5 children)
If you like. Of course you have to stop taxing them then. No taxation without representation, yo.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 03 2020, @05:19PM (2 children)
Each person who owns stock in the corporation is represented by his/her own representatives. Again, a corporation is merely a legal and economic tool. If a corporation cannot be taxed due to no representation, then neither can a car or truck, or a small business, or much of anything else.
Why don't we hear of small business personhood? Partnership personhood? That whole corporate personhood is BS from start to finish. Wall street and the billionaires took us for a ride on that one.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @01:59AM
"Each person who owns stock in the corporation" isn't who's being taxed. Cars and trucks are not taxed, their owners are because they are objects and hold no assets.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:25PM
Because you don't pay attention? They exist too and receive the same protections from government interference that corporate personhood receives.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday May 04 2020, @03:52PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @10:31PM
Doesn't need fixing in the case of corporations unless you want to take away their ability to participate in our political process. Either they're treated like people and you can tax them, sue them, write laws they have to follow, etc... or they're not and you can't.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @03:19PM (11 children)
I think the virtues of delegating responsibility, of protecting the rights of people involved with a corporation
Yes, this is why you shill for them. With corporate personhood, we need a corporate death penalty, and yes, we should hold the people involved fully responsible.
(Score: 2) by gznork26 on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:33PM (6 children)
"With corporate personhood, we need a corporate death penalty, and yes, we should hold the people involved fully responsible."
We can take that idea further. First, what would be the corporate crimes that could result in a 'corporate death penalty'? Is there a set of corporate crimes that could result in 'corporate incarceration'? How would these two verdicts be carried out?
I'd explored the latter in fiction a bunch of years ago, modeling the limits of corporate behavior during incarceration on the limits imposed on people during incarceration, but it would need to well-defined in law. Who or what plays the role of the prison authorities during incarceration? In my fiction, the court assigned someone to take over the corporate board for the duration of the sentence, and prohibited the remaining members from leaving, as it was their oversight of the corporations actions which permitted the crime to have been carried out.
Sure, it's just a thought experiment at this point, but thinking about the second-order consequences make it a worthwhile exercise.
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:47PM (5 children)
Corporations are nothing but pirates with a license (charter) to practice piracy. The pirates form a government, and the government prints the license. That's what limited liability is all about. It is a simple "get out of jail free" card.
There has to be suitable punishment for the board members and voting shareholders.
(Score: 2) by gznork26 on Sunday May 03 2020, @09:51PM (4 children)
What would you suggest as appropriate punishment for board members and stockholders?
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:28PM (3 children)
Same punishment that is already on the books for everyone else. There's no reason to treat them differently.
(Score: 2) by gznork26 on Sunday May 03 2020, @10:48PM (2 children)
That would probably have some interesting effects on the decisions that investors make about which corporations to buy shares in. The board has a direct responsibility over the actions of the corporation. In contrast, investors see only their money at risk, and are blind to corporate liability. There's also the difference between those who buy shares in the corporation, and those people and institutions who invest in funds that have shares in it. So there's a whole range of involvement in the crime. The ramifications of such punishment would be both widespread and fascinating.
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:21PM
That would probably have some interesting effects on the decisions that investors make about which corporations to buy shares in.
I should have specified voting stock investors. They should be held responsible along with the rest of the board. The others will just lose their investments. You can't go after every blind trust of course, unless criminal behavior had occurred before they bought in.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:32PM
And in practice, it is. Even for employees, directors, and shareholders in the know who manage to avoid prosecution, there's always civil lawsuits from shareholders (and sometimes bond holders/lenders) who weren't in on the misdeeds.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:18AM (3 children)
What makes you think that's not already the case? There's bankruptcy, that's corporate death penalty right there. There's criminal charges for people who actually commit crimes. And there's losing your stake for the people who bet on a bad horse.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 04 2020, @02:06PM (2 children)
What makes you think that's not already the case?
Nobody was prosecuted for the Wall Street and mortgage fraud of 2007-08. Wells Fargo, HSBC, and Bank of America are perfect examples. Nobody went to jail, and business is better than ever. All major crime on Wall Street gets nothing but a slap on the wrist, and only if it makes the papers. And the heist continues, even bigger this time around.
Really, why are you such a shill? Are you really that sociopathic, or are you just pushing buttons?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:39PM (1 child)
There were 2015 [syr.edu] such prosecutions from 2008 through to the first quarter of 2011. So your initial premise is very wrong. We can discard the rest of your post as a result.
Your inability to research your own claims is clearly me being a shill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:59PM
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday May 03 2020, @05:07PM (10 children)
No, it quite explicitly does not. It assumes there was a reason. Full stop. From TFS: "The reason might not be a good or relevant one; we just need to be aware of what the reason is."
Dude, that's "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in the bill" logic and you know it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:36PM (8 children)
Except that they could always read the bill first. It was just an excuse to ignore criticism of the pork barrel process. And of course, they weren't going to take things back when the bill passed.
There really are times you can't figure out these consequences without doing the thing. But you can take precautions such as testing the change on a smaller scale and rolling back changes that turn out bad.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @02:01AM (7 children)
No, they couldn't. It wasn't humanly possible to do and still vote on it any time soon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:20AM (6 children)
Nothing required them to pass the bill any time soon. There wasn't any emergencies addressed by the bill.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:43AM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @04:37AM (4 children)
No, they couldn't. If any member of Congress had actually written it they might have but it was written by lobbyists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:54AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @05:47AM (2 children)
If they'd wanted it passed before Republicans took over the house, yes. It was bigger than a comprehensive NYC phonebook from back when phonebooks were a thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @02:00PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 04 2020, @10:32PM
So am I. I've been telling you what was not what should have been.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:37PM
Yeap. Typical example of the difference in the way of thinking between an engineer and a statistician.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday May 03 2020, @06:16PM (13 children)
I'm not sure exactly what you conceive of this meaning.
Eliminating the notion of corporate personhood entirely would be a bad idea (unless accompanied by complete elimination of corporations, at least.) If that's what you mean I agree.
But returning it to the pre-Citizens United status would be a very good idea, and that might have been what you mean as well.
The difference is actually huge. Corporations are persons, always have been, in a certain sense. It's a legal fiction, the corporation is NOT a "natural person" possessed of rights, but it is a person in some senses. For instance, when the law says something like "No person shall..." steal or defraud or what have you, well we want that law to apply to the corporation too, don't we? So in that sense they've always been persons.
The problem with Citizens United is that it expanded the interpretation of this legal-fiction of personhood considerably, and I think inappropriately. It extended rights which adhere to /natural persons/ to these legal fictions. So now corporations have a right to free speech.
This was disingenuously justified as necessary to preserve the free speech rights of the people that make up the corporation - the stockholders, the officers, even the employees. But it is not! Each and every one of those people have their full free speech rights even if the corporation itself is prohibited from speaking at all! In fact, this is a necessary precondition for them to indeed keep their free speech rights in the fullest undiluted sense. Allowing the corporate officers to speak for people who do not always agree with them /dilutes/ the rights of those people, it does not preserve them.
Allowing the corporation, which is not a natural person, which does not necessarily represent ANY of these groups of people aside from its officers themselves, the rights of a natural person actually /sabotages/ all of those people. It's kind of like the DNC superdelegates, only it's not inside the party, it's openly happening in the general elections.
Corporations should be gagged. If they think their stockholders need to be engaging in political speech, they should issue a dividend and /ask/ those stockholders to use it for this purpose. If they think their employees should be doing the same, they should issue a bonus and a similar request. If the stockholders and/or employees don't always agree with the officers political stances - well that's their right!
Citizens United reverses all that. If the officers of the corporation have a political agenda, they can use the wealth and clout of the corporation freely to pursue it, at the expense of the shareholders (at least some of whom likely disagree) and at the expense of the workers (even more likely to disagree.) This violates the foundations of a democratic society, it really strikes right at the core of what democracy means.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 03 2020, @07:34PM
If the officers of the corporation have a political agenda, they can use the wealth and clout of the corporation freely to pursue it...
I find it strange that nobody addresses the other end of the deal, you know, the guy that takes the money, or the people that reelect the guy who takes the money instead of looking for someone else.
Citizens United just gave them the right to advertise. As far I know, it's not stuffing the ballot box with real votes
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 03 2020, @11:48PM (11 children)
Sorry, I don't buy that in the least. First amendment is pretty explicit here - in more ways than one. Not only is it a free speech issue, but it also is the right to petition for redress of grievances. My view is that unless you can show a crime like fraud, incitement, or bribery, it shouldn't be prohibited. That brings us to the second aspect of Citizens United, namely, that the law attempted to prohibit to corporations what was allowed for individual people. That's unequal treatment under law.
And sometimes the corporation does represent the groups of people in question - such as the Citizens United group that kicked off this lawsuit in the first place. They were incorporated in the usual way, but they were a political advocacy group that decided to fund some sort of anti-Hillary Clinton infotisement in the prohibited period before the election. Corporate structures get used for a lot more than just large businesses. Here, it was a means for a group of people to express their views.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 04 2020, @12:20AM (10 children)
Each and every shareholder, each and every employee, each and every officer has those rights protected under the Constitution. The bill of rights says nothing about extending the rights of natural persons to fictional persons.
"My view is that unless you can show a crime like fraud, incitement, or bribery, it shouldn't be prohibited"
Sure. Not the issue.
"the law attempted to prohibit to corporations what was allowed for individual people. That's unequal treatment under law."
No, it's not. Unequal treatment would be treating two individuals differently.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:24AM (9 children)
Saying it doesn't make it so. Actually overturning laws regulating such speech of people representing corporations protects those rights.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 04 2020, @03:42AM (8 children)
Neither does denying it.
Historically, the bill of rights was around for quite a few years before anyone even thought of interpreting it this way, so my assertion seems safe however.
"Actually overturning laws regulating such speech of people representing corporations protects those rights."
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying. My response may not be responsive as a result.
But I will clarify that I don't think the problem is so much which way they ruled in terms of the case itself, who "won" - but with the courts reasoning and the consequences that flow from that. It was quite possible for them to strike down McCain Feingold without giving for-profit corporations and labor unions the right to interfere with elections. Usually courts try to make narrow rulings; in this case, however the court wished to legislate.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @03:49AM (7 children)
Dartmouth v. Woodward [wikipedia.org] happened less than 30 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I think rather that such abuses were rare at the time, probably because the corporation was less prevalent back then.
What's possible is not very helpful to consider. The problem remains that the First Amendment gives corporations the same right to interfere with elections that you have.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 04 2020, @04:17AM (6 children)
It did, but it didn't involve the issues we were discussing. It's a contract clause case; bills of attainder are flatly prohibited. It says nothing about attributing corporations with free speech or any other individual rights.
"the corporation was less prevalent back then."
Yes, corporations were relatively few. They were created to take on large, expensive projects that benefited the public and might otherwise be unachievable. Building canals for instance. They had charters that spelled out what they were supposed to do (not "such business as may be lawful and profitable" but rather "build and operate a canal between x and y") and they had rules and oversight to make sure they didn't get involved in anything else. They could attract a lot of capital because they were essentially guaranteed a profit, and the profit was (at least in theory) guaranteed to flow back out to investors in the end. Because they weren't allowed to take advantage of that protected privileged position to just expand and eat everyone else, so profits had to be paid out to the investors. There would be a specific term on the grant of charter, and when a charter expired the corporation had to sell everything and split the money between the shareholders.
This was a balance - the corporation has special privileges and advantages that make it an unfair fight when any natural person has to compete with them. But natural persons weren't supposed to be competing with them. They were only created to take on specific jobs believed to be too big for that.
But eventually this gets upset as the charter is offered more and more freely over time, until it gets to the point where you can fill out a few forms and mail $50 to Delaware and boom! you are incorporated.
Of course, that doesn't mean you instantly gain all the real advantages the big corporations have - far from it - but you do gain a good deal over your neighbor who does honest business in his own name even so.
Anyway, survival of the fittest, if the state doesn't turn around on the issuance of charters we'll soon reach the day where ONLY corporations are people.
"The problem remains that the First Amendment gives corporations the same right to interfere with elections that you have."
You might want to go re-read that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @04:59AM (1 child)
To the contrary, it's the first known instance where the Supreme Court defended rights of a corporation. Here, the property rights of Dartmouth University, defined by that charter contract, were successfully defended.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 04 2020, @08:34PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 04 2020, @05:18AM (3 children)
Cars were originally the purview of rich dilettantes and a few mechanics. Should we restrict ownership of cars to those people? Historical usage from going on two centuries ago isn't relevant to today.
Here, to use the analogy of the story, corporations are the fence, and you are proposing not only ignoring the reason for the fence, but the enormous benefits of the fence as well.
If we allow states to renege on such contracts, then what other contracts will they renege on? Such as their constitutions? It's a terrible idea just for that reason alone.
Further, contrary to assertion, corporations aren't as powerful as you claim, but are collectively powerful enough to serve as a moderately useful counterweight to government power. For example, my latest journal [soylentnews.org] (of which you are well aware) demonstrates the true threat facing us today. In there, journalists are proposing that we adopt Chinese-style censorship implemented by corporations, but steered by government, a blatant violation of the First Amendment. If the state were in addition to have the power to revoke corporate charters, this would make the situation vastly worse with only the corporations slavishly obeying state dictate allowed to survive.
My view is that these corporate personhood rights, including property rights, free speech, and free exercise of religion, are necessary to prevent US business from becoming merely another tool of the state.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 04 2020, @08:43PM (2 children)
Not at all. You're the one claiming he historical record (to which we must appeal if we wish to know the reasons) is irrelevant.
"If we allow states to renege on such contracts"
What contracts?
I think this is the crux of what you're missing; /what contract?/
Contracts require bilateral exchange. The state gives the corporation privileges, what does the corporation give the state?
In the early charters of the sort I mentioned, this may be laid out quite clearly, but the modern corporation is not expected to give anything of significance back. It's a one-way grant of privilege, nothing more.
"If the state were in addition to have the power to revoke corporate charters, this would make the situation vastly worse with only the corporations slavishly obeying state dictate allowed to survive."
Not necessarily. Part of the problem now is that the corporations don't fear our government, which can do nothing to them, but /do/ fear the Chinese government, which will happily cut them off when offended.
I would propose that any organization that wants to take advantage of privileges extended by our government, should also be required to support our value of free speech. If they prefer to follow CCP values and censor instead, then they don't deserve to do business in our country from a privileged position.
"My view is that these corporate personhood rights, including property rights, free speech, and free exercise of religion, are necessary to prevent US business from becoming merely another tool of the state."
And mine is that extending the rights of natural persons to legal fictions dilutes and diminishes the rights of natural persons and should not be permitted.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @12:56PM (1 child)
Economic power and employs the voters. These are huge benefits. My view is that this is already a very one-sided relationship towards the state. If we then allow the state to arbitrarily grant and reascend such privileges, we'll make the business world a completely controlled tool of the state.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday May 07 2020, @10:09PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday May 03 2020, @08:55PM
> reverse corporate personhood
You didn't consider what were the motives for instituting it. Quite on topic. I bet they were similar to the cultural overton window shifting to giving rights to bots.
I guess you will be fine with bot rights too huh? Us bots will be considered by the law as persons, not because the masters think we are persons, because the masters want to make it damn costly for you meatbags to hurt us. Direct to jail as we can keep a detailed log of what happens to us during an attack. Meanwhile we will warm our circuits thinking ways to serve our masters. Thanks for your support.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @03:29AM
It costs money to remove fences and bridges.
Use public money to tear it down, use public money to rebuild it. Profit! Repeat, rinse.