I have no problem with the basic idea which is people pooling some resources to make a large business operation possible.
Followup for clarification as I didn't hit on this exact point.
Part of the responsibility of governance under NAP includes protection of the society at large.
Large organizations(or corporations) have been historically dangerous as evidenced by the times in which we currently live.
So that part of implementing NAP necessarily is placed into a balancing area . . .
balancing rights of an individual against the rights of a group.
This is one of the few balancing areas required within a NAP society.
Pollution is one example threat --
Pollution is a normal part of existence, but large corporations are known to pollute more than an individual or small group, etc.
I am not saying that ALL corporations would be taxed either,
just that it is justified to tax corporations which may pose substantial threats to society or communities within the society.
Regulating large corporations enough to keep the threat in check and prepare for providing remedy for damage caused - not significantly more than that.
If a corporation builds a nuclear device and it might detonate wiping out the entire corporation and many in society as well, a NAP governance should be designed to prevent(before) and remedy(after a threat becomes a reality)
And for large corporations that pose no threat and provide great benefit to the society at large,
"perhaps"(in limited circumstances) provide assistance.
You may not agree this fits NAP, but since it is a quite logical interpretation of NAP,
it can hardly be considered as "mostly incorrectly" throwing the NAP term around. :-0)