Yet the property owned by corporations is invested by humans. The rights to that property can't simply disappear. My argument has never been that corporations have rights, but that the humans who invest their property must have a say-so in the disposition thereof.
To better illuminate the point I am making:
1. The vast majority businesses have already exchanged what some consider inalienable rights to <
fill in blank with right of your choice> by making an agreement with the gov't to be treated more favorably in some ways than they would be if not entering into that agreement (S-corp, C-corp, LLC, etc.).
2. That agreement is entered into willingly.
3. The benefits are not without obligation, the extent of that obligation determined by the various states & localities.
4. There is no fundamental "Right to incorporation and favorable tax & legal circumstances relative to a sole proprietorship."
5. If the business owner does not want the favorable treatment or balks at the obligations, they are usually able to run a SP or move to some place that has a more favorable business climate.
Those who own shares in a corporation partake in the benefits. When Badcorp, Inc. dumps ground glass into baby food for fun & profit, the shareholders are not personally liable for the actions of Badcorp. They may lose their investment, but they won't be sued and charged with a crime. If Badcorp then goes bankrupt, the shareholders are not required to sell their house to make good the bad debt of Badcorp.
These benefits come at the cost of requirements, regs, and restrictions imposed by the state that charters Badcorp.
fistful, what you and others are arguing is something like the following:
"I want the benefits of a state-chartered corporation without incurring any obligation or meeting any requirements."
Perhaps it would help to think on
other state-chartered agreements/constructs where benefits are gained for meeting requirements and obligations set by the state, presumably for the benefit of the state and the citizenry. Lemme see, what could be such another example?
Well, how about
marriage? The state has particular requirements to engage in marriage (one male & one female of suitable ages), bestows specific benefits (tax, legal, etc.), and imposes obligations (responsibility for damage done by family members, care standards for children, responsible for paying for medical care, mandatory schooling of minor children, alimony/child support in case marriage dissolved, etc.).
In either case, marriage or business corps, participants willingly enter into agreements with the state and incur obligations in exchange for benefits.