No, it isn't. It is a government enterprise (a collective) that states permit private persons to profit from. It is basically an end run around democratic governance by devolving power to smaller groups. A corporation cannot exist in the absence of the state's creation of it.
As I already stated, the government does not decide whether or when to create a private, for-profit corporation. Private individuals, acting without government involvement, do that. If
anyone believed that a corporation was a
government enterprise, subject to the full control of the government,
nobody would form one. "Give up the rights to control your business and property in exchange for limited liability" is another bargain never made by the law. Given that corporations are
private enterprises, your notion that they represent an "end run around democratic governance" is likewise wrong. The power over the assets owned by a corporation and the conduct of the corporation's business were
already in private hands. Any limits on government power over that property and that business were already entrenched prior to incorporation.
That's because people no longer understand what corporations are, not because they are not government entities.
This requires a bit of unpacking. When empty vessel says "people" here, he means "all judges, lawyers, legislators, and others knowledgeable about the law." His idea--that corporations are a form or subdivision of government--exists only in empty vessel's dreamland, not in the real world. And note how deceptive his framing has been to this point. He didn't say corporations
should be treated as a form of government; he said they
are a form of government, knowing full well that such is not the law.
No, it's because, like you, people do not understand that a corporation is part of the government. But it clearly is. The state births it and bestows it power. Indeed, state governments were corporations. Municipalities are corporations created by charter. Any time the state brings something to existence, the thing that it brings into existence is also the state.
Notice again his use of "people" and "is" in the first sentence.
The state does not create a corporation in any sense but one: the secretary of state accepts a single document for filing, whereby the corporation's existence
as a corporation begins. But it was the private association of individuals (which is itself considered as existing separately from the individuals comprising it) that decided to form the corporation, decided which state to incorporate in, decided what to name the corporation, what its purpose would be, the duration of its existence, where it would establish its business, how it would conduct its business, how it would fund its business, who would be admitted to the association, and so forth. Then, once the formality of sending the Articles of Incorporation (or similar document) to the secretary of state had been satisfied, it was the private individuals who held an organizational meeting; who contributed money or other property to the corporation; who entered into leases or other contracts; who sought and obtained loans or other forms of financing; who sought, interviewed, hired, and managed employees of the business; who sought suppliers or buyers and entered into agreements with them; who incurred every expense of the corporation; who, in short, did
everything involved in creating and operating the corporation
except for accepting and filing that one document.
EDIT:
This is explicitly a power granted to corporations by the federal government. Without that power being granted, an informal association lacks these protections.
a corporation is entirely a legal concept created by the US government,
Virtually all corporations are formed under state laws, not federal law.
