[yowlingcat]

That's not historically accurate. Historically, the purpose of a company was to be a vehicle that a passive partner could invest capital into an enterprise providing a return on investment, such that an active partner (who did not) could manage it [1].

I do not see historical support for your claim that the purpose of a company was "to employ people and provide services and value to the community they existed in" even if that would be an ideal social outcome (and one which I'd personally prefer to see everywhere).

[1] https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/11/18/a-brief-history...

[falcolas]

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/27/on-the-purpose-of...

The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to create value over the long-term, which requires consideration of the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, creditors and communities) ...

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/business-and-society...

Business corporations are perhaps the most influential organizations in society and have long been recognized as important contributors to the common good. Society grants corporations unique privileges in order to harness their great capacities to serve its needs.

https://www.ft.com/content/482a8435-c04c-4be8-9856-941e7ecf1...

... it would abandon shareholder primacy and redefine corporate purpose to create an economy that “serves all Americans”.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-role-of-the-corporation-in-so... :

... scholars Berle and Means (1932) predicted ... both owners and "the control" accepting public interest as the objective of the corporation.

[yowlingcat]

It's not clear how those 4 quotes are supposed to relate to each other without added interpretation. Is there something more you'd like say?

For what it's worth, I don't know if any of those sources cover broad economic trends across history. I do find them in pursuit of noble goals for the early 2020s.

But in this case, my opinion is that there's a bit of a gulf there in between "this is how I would like things to work" and "this is how things have worked today/in the past/for a long time".

[bigfudge]

The reason companies are given legal standing and privilege is because they serve a useful social function, in addition to being a legal nicety for investment. If companies don’t serve useful social purposes we can change the law to withdraw those privileges.

[yowlingcat]

That's incorrect. They are given legal standing and privilege because they serve a useful /economic/ function (tax base).

The social function is downstream from this, and it's also what creates friction to actually /change the law/ to withdraw those privileges -- you do it at the risk of hemorrhaging that tax base which funds the governing apparatus.

[bigfudge]

I think you have a narrower definition of ‘social’ function. I mean the things that are useful to society as a whole. Things we seem not helpful/useful/conducive to people leading best lives can be curtailed. Not everyone shares the view that “economic freedoms” are inalienable when they entail externalities.