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.
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.
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.
