…Then why can't trees and mountains be persons?
In 2013, Jonathan Frieman, a local
Californian got pulled over for using the carpool lane after being spotted by a
CHP. He was by himself, however he had a few documents in his front seat; these
documents were incorporation papers of his charity foundation, which he
believes to be, as per Vehicle Section code 470, a person.
Code 470 defines a person as, “includes a natural
person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or
corporation.”
The officer looked at the papers
and simply told the man to take it up with the judge. His defense being that
the street signs do say, “2 or more persons per vehicle”, and since a
corporation is defined as a person, he should be within the limits of the law
by driving alone with his documents.
During the court session, his
lawyer stated the main issue at hand is that citizens should not be left to
guess whether or not he or she is in violation of the statute. His intentions
were made clear as he entered the court room stating that the question of
personhood is one that needs to be brought to surface…Frieman believes that
corporations have been handed over too much power and authority when in reality
they are fictional entities. He said rather humorously that he didn’t buckle up
his papers because they were his imaginary friend, just like corporations,
imaginary, they’re not real, so he used their power in order to drive in the
carpool lane.
The judge dismissed the case under
the following basis…California Vehicle Code 21655.5,
noting instead subsection F, which states “It is the intent of the Legislature,
in amending this section, to stimulate and encourage the development of ways
and means of relieving traffic congestion on California highways and, at the same
time, to encourage individual citizens to pool their vehicular resources and
thereby conserve fuel and lessen emission of air pollutants.”
Frieman concluded his
closing statement with a question, ‘What defines a person? Is it a natural
thing, or a man made thing?’ The judge did not entertain the idea of the
question of personhood.
So I ask another
question…if corporations and firms are defined as being persons, then why cant
mountains and trees be persons too, giving them the same amount, if not more,
authority and rights as the rest do.
Hi Khaled,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this post, as well as our in-class discussion of what it means to be a person.
When I was a youngster, there was a TV show called "Kids are People, Too". Every time I hear about corporations being people, it makes me want to say "Corporations are people, too!". Except that they're not, of course. Corporations are created by people, but in my opinion, they are not discrete people in and of themselves. To me, being a person means several things:
1) You have 1 (one) physical body
2) That physical body is alive (so it can't be a building)
3) That physical body has a heart, a brain, organs, blood, skin, hair, etc, so single-celled organisms or plants don't fit the bill. Granted, animals could fit this description, but we'd have to say that to be a person, one must hail from a two-legged, two-armed species. Boom, no spiders or horses or cats as people!
4) To be a person, you must come from a species that has the facility of a human language. So, again, by this definition your dog (while adorable and absolutely a key member of the family) is not a person. Even if you like him better than some people in your family, which has certainly been my experience at times.
By more strictly defining what is human, I think most people would agree that corporations are not people. Nor are trees, cars, mountains, books, papers or cardigans.
I am surprised that the "corporations are people" ruling has lasted this long, and imagine that it cannot hold up forever. Frankly, I would much rather call my dog (or my car) a person than to call Google a person.
Thank you for bringing up this discussion.
Hi John, thanks for your input.
ReplyDeleteIn Law, a person is recognized as being a subject entitled to rights and duties. Under this context is where corporations have been given the title of being a person. Therefore, under this context, I do believe that mountains and trees have the full right to be labeled as a person, including your dog :)
However, taking things out of context, I will agree with you that the definition of a person should be confined to a human being in order to remove any possible misunderstandings or misconceptions regarding the question of personhood.
See you in class, hope you're having a smooth weekend.