This is as ethical as it gets. They're getting compensated by being able to use the result of their work freely. This is the rising tide that lifts all boats.
People are humans. Natural people are people, and therefore humans. Humans have rights because we all want to live in a society where it's not OK to murder people without consequences.
Corporations are pieces of paper we've scribbled on. Because they are pieces of paper, they cannot be harmed.
This is the primary difference between corporations and people.
People can be harmed through the pieces of paper they've scribbled on. That is material. But do not mistake that for the paper being harmed. It can't be. It's just a piece of paper.
You're trying to make sense of a broken worldview. Hopefully the absurdity is becoming clear.
No, it's just a piece of paper.
Yes, rights/laws/norms/etc are legal fiction. Harm is material. Without harm, there's not much purpose to a legal system. A bad legal system lets someone harm someone else, and then wave around a piece of paper saying "Oh, it was this piece of paper that did it, not me, I'm not responsible!"
A good legal system recognizes that that's absurd. We currently play along far too much, and Citizens United was a breaking point for many people.
Which is why elsewhere I make the argument that we should strongly reject the terminology of "people" in any relation to corporations. It leads people down bad mental thought processes by sneaking in priors.
Corporations are not "X people". Corporations are not people, period. Natural people are just people.
I'm also focused on the broader principle, not just specifically any one structure such as LLCs.
I have the legal right as a person to write on a piece of paper "i am a person". That piece of paper does not inherit any rights by my doing so.
Me writing "Microsoft" on one paper and "Google" on another paper certainly means that those two pieces of paper are distinct. Neither one, however, has rights.
What I meant by intermingling/combination/whatever is that, there are no rights to inherit, because a piece of paper has no rights, inherited or otherwise. That includes intermingled rights of people. People may have complex intermingled rights on certain subjects. That is not applicable to legal fictions, because they don't have rights and can't inherit rights.
I think it will become clear as you picture the silly idea of writing "I'm a piece of paper and I have rights" and then expecting that to mean anything. Work backwards from there.
It's a dangerous game to anthropomorphize legal fictions by using terms like attributing "will" to them. Likewise by sneaking in priors with the term "people". It's best to stick to calling them legal fiction.
It might help to picture them as literally a piece of paper. It would be pretty silly to say that piece of paper has a "will of its own" or "rights" or calling it a "person", wouldn't it?
If I scribble "i am a person" on a piece of paper, it's still just a piece of paper. If I get a bunch of people to join in and scribble something on the same piece of paper, it's still just a piece of paper. There's no confusion over "rights" or "will". It's a piece of paper.
You're confusing them again, which is why sneaking in priors with the term "people" is bad. "granted to them by the people" means "We The People", society, etc, not the people in control of the legal fiction.
> being proxies of their constituents
These proxies have no rights. People can exercise their rights as people. Or, they can create legal fictions with no rights. That legal fiction inherits no rights from the owners, which is where the analogy fails. There's no intermingling/combination/whatever to call "rights", because there's nothing.
Every action that legal fiction takes is a permission granted to it by society that continues to tolerate its existence. That tolerance is finite. When that tolerance ends, so does the legal fiction's existence. Unlike with people, there are no moral quandaries with revoking the privilege of existence.
Rights being inherent to people is an interesting but separate topic. We've generally agreed as a society that people have rights.
They're not, and the terminology shouldn't be confused. "Juridical people" tries to sneak in priors about what "people" means.
People, of course, have rights. Corporations are not people, including "juridical people". They are legal fiction with absolutely no rights. Every action they take is permission granted to them by the people.
The article doesn't say exactly what information. Is it something that technically maybe could possibly be considered under NDA? Or something more substantial? France said:
> “Each country is free to regulate their borders,” Mr. Baptiste acknowledged. But he said the scientist’s case was “extraordinarily atypical” and a “subject of concern.”
I'm inclined to believe that they think this is atypical. How did he "attempt to conceal" it?
That group can have the legal fiction of the corporation for liability reasons. They can also, separately, assemble as a group for political speech, each using their own rights as a person. That corporation is not a person and has no right to speech. Their group for political speech in turn represents them as people and does not shield them from liability.
We've unfortunately conflated this, to our detriment. Legal fictions don't have rights. People do.
Directors of Widget Corp can group together separately from Widget Corp and exercise their personal rights, or they can fuck off. Widget Corp isn't a person and has no rights.