You think we can get back to that on a large scale? I know the most successful communes have done this, but they all fizzle out after people insist on working weird sex stuff into it (see Oneida). Because as a dirty lefty commie that sounds great to me. I'd even regain some of my old trust in capitalism if this happened.
I wish I could recall where I read it, but I think our Constitution referenced the Jamestown Charter, which was a corporate document giving rights to individuals. If the basis of our government references a corporate charter, then maybe there is no fix, and this is the best we can squeeze out of this government model? I really do not know the answers to these questions, but it seems you might.
Yeah, my post was definitely reactionary utopianism. We're simply too far gone to ever come back. Really, and pragmatically, what I'm getting at is reasonability in the terms of economic scale. There's no reason for corporations to be indefinite entities nor is there a reason for them to be into every little thing.
This is going to sound stupid, but do you remember the film "Good Guys?" It's a harmless comedy with Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell, right? Well, no. It was written by a very perceptive guy named Adam McKay (Vice) who creates a villainous corporation. "__, we're into everything." There's no reason to shield people from personal liability when they provide a hundred different goods and services. It indeed gives the justification for being "too big to fail," and when they do, under the aforementioned rationale, the taxpayers foot the bill.
An aside: In fact, footing that bill while shielding the corporate officers and shareholders from personal liability was something both the Tea Party and Occupy (oh, remember when?) agreed upon. They should have worked together in opposing bonuses, etc. The public got absolutely fleeced because these corporations provided so many goods and services that we couldn't exist without them. We need to at least re-think the old requirements of stating what it is a corporation actually does on its corporate charter. Because right now, it's far too easy -- in my opinion -- to list in the broadest terms what it is you actually do and get your charter approved (always in Delaware, of course).
As far as providing only public services, we could use the standard of public use used under Kelo v. New London for defining what public use means. In that case, the S. Ct. held that public use meant literally that which serves a public purpose. It's incredibly broad. That was the famous eminent domain takings case. That definitional rule has the danger of swallowing itself, but we're never going to just use corporations to build roads and other projects we thin of as strictly public. It just can't happen. That's more a historical nod than anything. In fact, asking corporations to perform goods and services for public purposes allows for privatization of typically state-run projects, so I'm not sure that should even appeal to you, Dedfin.
That said, the public welfare should be taken into consideration when thinking about corporations and whether we allow corporate behavior to exist. Because right now, the way things are structured, they're not contributing to society by providing goods and services, they're harming it by being too big, into everything, while its officers and shareholders are shielded from personal liability. There has to be some sort of statutory or judicial test by which we determine who and where and why we'll allow this shield.
Anyway, I'll try and clarify my thoughts and post a little further on the subject, but I'll look into the corporate charter of Jamestown and get back to you. I don't think the Founders looked to a corporate charter to grant individual rights. I think they appealed to what you learned in your basic civics courses. They appealed to the inalienable and universal rights of mankind.