Computational behavior theory and cultural evolution
The debate about corporate personhood—the legal recognition of corporations as persons—rose again to prominence in the U.S.A. when, in 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations can fund political parties under the same rules as people (they were formerly severely restricted from doing so).
If corporations are persons, they may also have health problems. Corporations themselves take all possible steps to care about their own physical health, such as having enough food (money, supplies, etc.) and keeping internal organs (administration, production, logistics, etc.) in good shape. This is what people usually mean when they say that a corporation’s health is good or poor. Corporations as people, however, may also have mental health issues. As many psychiatric patients, they may need significant external intervention to get better.
Consider, for instance, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), or the “pervasive disregard of, and violation of, the rights of others” (this definition and most of the following on ASPD is from Wikipedia). According to the American Psychiatric Association, three or more of these symptoms indicate antisocial personality:
How many corporations can be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder? And what would be the treatment?
The next time someone claims to be “going rogue,” they should first look up the meaning:
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3 : a mischievous person : scamp
4 : a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5 : an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
From the Online Etymological Dictionary:
In italy, a woman cannot remarry until 300 days after a divorce. This norm intends to avoid paternity disputes by making sure that, upon remarrying, a woman is not expecting a child from her previous husband. Such intent is apparent from the provisions, stated in the same law, that allow to cut the 300 days short if:
How many flaws can you find in behind this norm? I have found the following:
All this makes the norm ineffective in its intent, i.e., preventing paternity disputes. The law was written around 1980, mostly by men born in the 1920s and 1930s. Those aging, somewhat sexist, democratically elected lawmakers could not anticipate that paternity tests would obsolete their hard work in a few years. While point 1 above is, in theory, sufficient to make the law unconstitutional in Italy, the law itself has not, apparently, been challenged in court, and thus stands as of today, August 20th, 2009.
I have been able to find other similar cases: Puerto Rico, Lousiana before 1970 (remarriage laws in the U.S.). Do you know of other similar legislation elsewhere?
European Parliament elections, taking place these days, are a perfect example of the constant struggle between continental cooperation and localistic parochialism in the European Union. Europeans are called to vote for their representatives in "the only supranational institution whose members are democratically
elected by direct universal suffrage," which "represents the people of the
Member States" (source). Yet they can only vote for citizens of their own country (or the country of residence, if living abroad). The implicit assumption is that someone can be fairly represented only by her or his own nationals (or those who live nearby), which is exactly the kind of localistic thinking that the EU should strive to overcome. Personally, I would be glad to be able to vote for non-Italian politicians.
drghirlanda 