Legal entities are very ancient.
The " modern form" was created at the end of middle-ages to allow people who put money in a trade to separate the trade from their holdings.
In fact, it is a legal fiction.
1 Like
Ain’t it all. 
You reminded me of a book I listened to years ago, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari,
From WIKI:
Harari’s main argument is that Sapiens came to dominate the world because it is the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers.He argues that prehistoric Sapiens were a key cause of the extinction of other human species such as the Neanderthals, along with numerous other megafauna.
He further argues that the ability of Sapiens to cooperate in large numbers arises from its unique capacity to believe in things existing purely in the imagination, such as gods, nations, money, and human rights.
He argues that these beliefs give rise to discrimination – whether that be racial, sexual or political and it is potentially impossible to have a completely unbiased society. Harari claims that all large-scale human cooperation systems – including religions, political structures, trade networks, and legal institutions – owe their emergence to Sapiens’ distinctive cognitive capacity for fiction.[4]
Accordingly, Harari regards money as a system of mutual trust and sees political and economic systems as more or less identical with religions.
caveat: While it was positively received by the general public (including me), scholars with relevant subject matter expertise have been very critical of its scientific claims.
1 Like
This, to me, sounds like the underlying structure of what little I understand of CRT.
A belief in a fiction is engrained in to the societal systems we use today.
I suppose I should have just asked my 8 yo nephew, since they’re learning it in grade school.
I have read the book and i have re ad critics, some time ago.
For the specialists, is suffers from the same defects a Jared Diamond book, *Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, because they have no true knowledge in prehistory and anthropology.
The left criticizes the book because the social structure and the impact of the ruling classes is totally ignored.
But, for me, this idea is basically true:
Now, does it mean that beyond the beliefs of men, there is not a reality which can be known by science? I would say that this reality exists, in the physical world.
I don’t think he addresses the limits of science. He talks about imagined things that definitely aren’t in the physical world
I agree with Lausten, the book doesn’t really deal with science, he pretty much keeps it to human society as I remember.
Have I got the response for that. It comes down to appreciating the
Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide
I’ve been having an interesting dialogue with Paul Mealing where he’s arguing Objective Reality is the same as physical reality and I’m arguing that “objective” is a psychological/mental property and not a physical property and thus an inferior term, because in the end it implies humans are the arbiter of reality.
This in turn encourage the ludicrous flights of fancy such as Hoffman’s Conscious Agents as described in this “Case Against Reality.”
We are not.
We are an amazing product of reality doing the best we can with what we have. When we are gone, reality will continue marching along.
1 Like