> It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield.

Corporations don't function as a liability shield in the sense you're talking about. The idea that people can individually engage in criminal or tortious conduct without any direct accountability is a myth -- limited liability protects investors from financial liabilities that exceed their investment, but it in no way shields corporate managers from liability for their own criminal conduct in managing the firm.

> So while corporations aren't people, they do seem to be exercising autonomous agency as singular entities distinct from the people who constitute them. Because by definition that is what a limited liability corporation provides?

No, it does not do that in any way, shape or form. Limited liability means that creditors can't foreclose on your house to cover the debts of a firm that you own $100 of stock in. It does not shield anyone actually managing the company from civil or criminal liability for their actions.

> It seems that this is the crux of a lot of angst?

That angst is attributable to believing in misinformation pushed advanced by factions who benefit from increasing conflict and controversy in our society.

Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?

> If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved

Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours.

> There is some reason they don't do this

I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the corporation is a proxy for people.

Your real argument seems to be that you think people should have to choose between exercising their rights and having the protections of the corporate form.

> I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a proxy" line is 100% horseshit.

Not the original author, but generically, there are a few reasons why one would place a residential property in a distinct legal entity.

Most commonly it's to shield a property against others - spouses, children or other relatives with legal inheritance claims, especially if the jurisdiction in question treats corporate ownership more favorably to the goal of the person in question than they treat real estate ownership. In some cases, cough Rene Benko, the aim is to have a corporate veil against the government or creditors, although more commonly a trust is the chosen vehicle instead of a corporation.

The other way around is rare, but also works - the legal entity caps your exposure. Think of, say, your house catches fire due to shoddy electrical works. Some dumbass neighbor kid climbs over a fence, drowns in your pool and is barely rescued in time, but their brain is now fried for good and the kid will need 80 years in intensive assisted living. You own your home outright? All of your other wealth can be seized now to make the neighbors whole. However, if a LLC owns that home, your exposure is now limited to the value of the home - the LLC goes bankrupt, the house is sold off with the proceeds going to the neighbors, you can keep the rest of your wealth.

Irrelevant.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - and the First Amendment it draws upon - applies to everyone, regardless of what corporation they may or may not work for. An unemployed person is protected from defamation claims by public figures under it just fine.

It does not establish any special corporate rights.