All of the supposed "special treatments" you've outlined are not special or unusual at all. They're simply the practical result of government acknowledging and respecting the rights of people to associate. Government cannot treat an enterprise any other way, not if it intends to respect the rights of the people involved to come together and put up some of their assets to create an enterprise.
Your argument is fundamentally false. It's premised on the idea that people may only associate after they've appeased government.
Sorry, you are
basically, fundamentally incorrect.
Folks can come together for a business venture via contracts that require no such thing as incorporation as performed by gov't.
Doing so does not allow them to:
1. Create a business entity that survives the deaths of the contracted partners. A corporation as granted by the state can survive the death of any or all partners/investors. Not so when folks contract between each other.
2. Choose how profit is taxed in the manner most advantageous to the investors: personal income vs corporate income. Different taxes with different rules. The general case of X number of folks contracting together for a business venture would have profits taxed as personal income of the investors, period.
3. Reduce/eliminate personal liability for actions of the corporation. The case I posit above would leave the business partners personally liable for the actions of the business.
4. Prevent personal assets from being seized to make good the bad debt of the contracted business. If GM goes tits up/bankrupt, shareholders of GM are not pursued and made to sell their house to cover GM's bad debt. OTOH, in the above example of a contracted business relationship between individuals, if the venture tanks, the investors are vulnerable to having personal assets seized to make good the business debt.
Want theses benefits? Then render unto Caesar.
Huh? Do you imagine that the people behind the Enron fraud were somehow shielded from the consequences because Enron was a corporation? The people responsible were indicted. The corporation didn't shield them from that.
Of course, not everyone involved in Enron were prosecuted. That's because not everyone involved with Enron were responsible for the fraud. Is this the supposed "special treatment" you claim corporations receive? This is not special treatment, this is the way things should be.
HTG, that is because many of the Enronners
committed crimes. Incorporation does not protect someone from the consequences of committing crimes. Going bankrupt is not a crime and neither is being on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Fraud, cooking the books, etc. are. Matter of fact, one of the crimes committed by Enron employees was not complying with gov't requirements on honest reporting of their balance statements.