OTOH, if it's a desirable social norm, then it's perhaps insufficient for law to fail to prevent it; it may be desirable for law to encourage or even require it as a precondition for the protections associated with the corporate form.
The left's history with such a social norm, voluntary co-ownership is ... sordid. Just read up on how leftist parties treated Israeli Kibbutzim, for example.
People abandoned them, first in small numbers, and then of course the left no longer wanted anything to do with them, and they started getting sabotaged by (leftist) governments ...
And of course, now half of them are referred to as those settlers. It's not the same thing of course, but because of land prices they pretty much have to be, unless they're "historical".
TLDR: most of the existing ones failed and because of that everybody hates the new ones.
Let's not go there. Let's just skip it this time around, ok ?
Which said laws were preventing this?
OTOH, if it's a desirable social norm, then it's perhaps insufficient for law to fail to prevent it; it may be desirable for law to encourage or even require it as a precondition for the protections associated with the corporate form.