Corporations are legal creatures of state legislatures through chartering. They should not be persons unless the law stupidly so stipulates. If rights are endowed on individuals, they cannot be uniquely endowed on collective associations, since the association enjoys individual rights individually. As a collective, they can assign the exercise of their rights (under conditions specified) to their agents (corporate officers) in order to buy, sell, make goods or provide services, and pay wages.
Of more concern (to me) is the situation of the corporate shareholders, as they are presented as owners---but are denied the perquisites of owners. The major shareholders have the power of direction, so there is only pure democracy (i.e., tyranny) as its governing principle. There are seldom any shakeups resulting from a shareholders' meeting. I think it would be interesting for applicable law to say that any 10% of shareholders could compel a vote of confidence in the prevailing Board of Directors et al. The governing majority would probably vote it down easily. But it would be an interesting twist to require that if over 50% of the outvoted minority still voted for a loss of confidence on a second ballot, then it should prevail. On the principle that if the overwhelmed minority were not uniformly content to go along with the majority, then the majority does not get to rule. Then open ballots for new directors. (In other words, the evidence of proper stewardship of the majority shareholders would be in the relative acquiescence of the minority to the majority decision prevailing. This would be an inhibition of the temptation of the majority to run roughshod over the minority.)
Human rights should apply to individuals only. Corporations are much more powerful than individuals, and they don't die. They could trample individual human rights more than a government could. In fact they can combine and rule governments (State Street, Black Rock, Vanguard). There was an 1868 law about railroads that deceptively gave corporations human rights, and it has set many tangled precedents.
Corporations are legal creatures of state legislatures through chartering. They should not be persons unless the law stupidly so stipulates. If rights are endowed on individuals, they cannot be uniquely endowed on collective associations, since the association enjoys individual rights individually. As a collective, they can assign the exercise of their rights (under conditions specified) to their agents (corporate officers) in order to buy, sell, make goods or provide services, and pay wages.
Of more concern (to me) is the situation of the corporate shareholders, as they are presented as owners---but are denied the perquisites of owners. The major shareholders have the power of direction, so there is only pure democracy (i.e., tyranny) as its governing principle. There are seldom any shakeups resulting from a shareholders' meeting. I think it would be interesting for applicable law to say that any 10% of shareholders could compel a vote of confidence in the prevailing Board of Directors et al. The governing majority would probably vote it down easily. But it would be an interesting twist to require that if over 50% of the outvoted minority still voted for a loss of confidence on a second ballot, then it should prevail. On the principle that if the overwhelmed minority were not uniformly content to go along with the majority, then the majority does not get to rule. Then open ballots for new directors. (In other words, the evidence of proper stewardship of the majority shareholders would be in the relative acquiescence of the minority to the majority decision prevailing. This would be an inhibition of the temptation of the majority to run roughshod over the minority.)
Human rights should apply to individuals only. Corporations are much more powerful than individuals, and they don't die. They could trample individual human rights more than a government could. In fact they can combine and rule governments (State Street, Black Rock, Vanguard). There was an 1868 law about railroads that deceptively gave corporations human rights, and it has set many tangled precedents.