Is there any empirical evidence that legal entities actually exist?

[Rad]

I have a question for the brilliant legal minds of Quatloos. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "legal entity"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of government as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "legal entities" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a legal entity, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

[wserra]

I have a question for the brilliant minds of Stevens acolytes. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "neutrino"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of physics as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "neutrinos" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a neutrino, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

[Rad]

Clarification
Specifically talking about "juridical persons" rather than "natural persons". I've seen different definitions for "legal entity". Some definitions I've seen include "individuals" or "natural persons" as "legal entities". I just want to make it clear, I'm speaking of legal entities other than natural persons if you consider a natural person to be a legal entity. I'm looking for actual evidence juridical persons or judicial persons in fact exist.

[Guest]

Not a professional particle physicist, but a google search turned this up:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... no.html#c2

I figured perhaps a law graduate or legal professional would be qualified as an expert on the matters of "juridical persons". Is there perhaps someone who would be more qualified to provide some expertise on this matter?

[wserra]

I'm looking for actual evidence juridical persons or judicial persons in fact exist.

A legal question to which I could give a legal answer instantly. However, since you won't accept a legal answer to a legal question, it seems sort of pointless.

What would you accept - "Yes, I have a picture of a neutrino"?

[wserra]

Not a professional particle physicist, but a google search turned this up:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... no.html#c2

Exactly so. It's nonsense to say that something doesn't exist if it cannot be sensed. All sorts of things exist that can only be detected from their effects. Other things exist as catchall designations of component parts - the marketplace, the health-care system, and innumerable others. Do they not exist because you can only point to individual parts?

[wserra]

Enough here (Open Forum). This forum is not meant to be a place for an extended conversation. I am going to move it to the sovereign (US) forum. Anyone who posted here is welcome to continue, but you'll have to register. New registrations are approved every day.

[notorial dissent]

The same argument could be/was made for the existence of bacteria/virus/etc.

A pointless and unproductive dialogue.

[Famspear]

I have a question for the brilliant legal minds of Quatloos. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "legal entity"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of government as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "legal entities" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a legal entity, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

Legal entities exist under your bed at night while you're asleep. Of course, you can't seen them. They have an uncanny ability to make themselves invisible as soon as you shine a flashlight under the bed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have a question for the brilliant legal minds of Quatloos. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "legal entity"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of government as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "legal entities" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a legal entity, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

It depends on your definition of "empirical evidence."

[Famspear]

I have a question for the brilliant legal minds of Quatloos. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "legal entity"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of government as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "legal entities" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a legal entity, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

It depends on your definition of "empirical evidence."

And, it depends on your definition of "exist."

As we have been noting in another thread, words do not have definitions or meanings that are somehow independent of the definitions or meanings used by people. In that sense, words don't "mean" things. Instead, people mean things when people use words.

The tenor of Rad's question indicates that he wants to argue about something or make a point about something, but he doesn't know how to do it. He believes that he knows how to go about doing it, but opening the thread with a dumb question in the way that he did it provides us with empirical evidence that he does not know how to do what he wants to do.

Rad, you're not going to be able to out-think anyone here. If you have a point to make, then don't ask questions. Just make your point -- in one or more declarative sentences.

Prepare yourself for some disappointment, too.

[Burnaby49]

And so it begins.

We've had this numerous times. An open-ended question to lure responses so the questioner can bait yet again. No answer will satisfy him because he doesn't want one. Relevant answers are not the desired outcome of trolling. He wants to show his buddies how he caused a commotion on Quatloos and how they tied themselves in knots over a question so vague that is impossible to answer in any useful way and which wouldn't be believed if it was.

[bmxninja357]

if i was a mod i would cross check some i.p. addys. this question and wording sounds exactly like someone else who used to prattle on about such silliness...

peace,
ninj

[eric]

I have a question for the brilliant legal minds of Quatloos. Can you provide me with a photograph, or other empirical evidence of a "legal entity"? If we don't simply take the dogmas of government as articles of faith, can you produce a photograph or other empirical evidence that "legal entities" in fact exist? Have you ever personally seen a legal entity, or do you believe in these invisible entities as part of your faith-based belief system?

It depends on your definition of "empirical evidence."

I was all prepared to do a magnificent explanation of Schrodinger's Cat, not the "cat in the box" construct, but an even more interesting corollary where I have to prove that I own a cat (or are owned by one) when I realized it was all pointless. Yes I am qualified to discuss it from education and experience (my work mate at one employer was a particle physicist) but trying to convince someone that it is necessary to have a legal entity that may or may not be an artificial construct, may have a defined probability of being dead or alive at any instance, and only have empirical evidence that it exists, would be a waste of time.
Besides, it's 3 pm when I regularly hear sounds that indicate that a cat may be present in my house so I am required to open a door so that said legal entity (licenced 2 days ago as part of my annual taxes) may harass the local wildlife.

[eric]

if i was a mod i would cross check some i.p. addys. this question and wording sounds exactly like someone else who used to prattle on about such silliness...
peace,
ninj

Hmmm... both "guest" and "rad" don't show up with the usual poster information. Interesting...

[wserra]

Hmmm... both "guest" and "rad" don't show up with the usual poster information. Interesting...

Because the thread began in the "Open Forum", the only forum on the board that doesn't require registration - and these two didn't register. That forum isn't intended for discussions, though, so I moved the thread here.

[Jeffrey]

Neutrino is a bad metaphor.

I'm assuming this guy is a Marc Stevens guy so he's probably talking about States or Corporations.

A better metaphor would be a school of fish. Yes it is made up of individual fish but as an aggregate it functions as a single entity and it's useful to be able to describe that collective with one word.

A state is just that concept stepped up. Sure it's made up of individual human beings but as a group it functions as a single entity.

Asking for empirical proof that legal entities exist is kind of a ridiculous question when you can go outside and see States engaging in war with other states, corporations buying and selling goods and services, etc etc etc.

[The Observer]

I am not sure even why we are responding to this stuff. After all, neither poster provided empirical proof that they exist. Why bother with a reply when you cannot be sure that Rad and Guest are actually real? My rule is I will bother with a response once they can provide empirical evidence that they actually exist in the same manner as I do.

[Famspear]

I am not sure even why we are responding to this stuff. After all, neither poster provided empirical proof that they exist. Why bother with a reply when you cannot be sure that Rad and Guest are actually real? .....

Ohmygosh you're right! Here I was, spinning my wheels, teasing an entity supposedly called "Rad", I don't even have any empirical evidence that Rad exists!



Rad? Rad? Are you out there? Are you just one of those computer "bots"???!!!?? Oh, Rad, please prove you're real!

Hello? Rad?

[Famspear]

Uh-oh.

Here comes another one.

Oh, it's hard to put feelings in rhyme,
'Cause my brain isn't working this time!
Ontologically speaking,
My neurons, they're creaking!
My perception just ain't worth a dime!

To be honest as Honest Abe Lincoln,
I must say: "What the heck was I thinkin'?"
Oh, how silly I'll feel
If that feller ain't real!
Will my head just implode? Is it shrinkin'?

Yes, I feel I've been fooled -- I've been had!
I was tricked into talkin' to Rad!
Can I live with the shame?
After all, I'm to blame!
Oh, I must be a nut, and quite mad!