Wow. There are things about the world you are evidently yet to discover. Consider the legal status of the corporation.
The depth of your ignorance astounds. Consider that the legal status of the corporation was granted
by the government.
edit...
The anarcho-capitalist libertarian and Austrian economist Murray N. Rothbard, in his Power and Market (1970), attacked limited-liability laws, but argued it was possible similar arrangements may emerge in a free market, stating,
Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann's The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such individuals would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.
Indeed, under the influence of lobbyists and other agents no doubt in the pay of.... private capital.
Actually it can be argued that the rise of the Corporation marks the shift in capitalism from the power of the Owners of capital to the power of Managers of capital. A struggle between aristocrats as far as most people are concerned. Furthermore the will of shareholders is now minimal and fleeting, and analogous to the role of voters in a super-state democracy, less than that in most cases, share-holders are mere motes of hot-money shifting from place to place, un-aware, irresponsable, un-empowered.
We are all, in the West, shareholders now (well anyone with a pension or a savings account anyway). This status really isn't worth much more than sweaty greasy wads of cash at best.
Stake-holder capitalism for the win. The owner, the worker, the customer, the neighbor, the supplier, etcetera etcetera. In fact I contend that we need to know eachother more. That or become mutually alienated fodder for the likes of Goldman fucking Sachs.