Which law do you believe is unjust?
My point is that corporate law IS just. It's just a natural reflection of how the market would work. Just because you own something, doesn't mean that you're responsible for how people use that something. An owner of a corporation is not responsible for how it runs, and should not be held liable for the actions of others.
That's like saying that state enterprises, e.g., the USP, a system of socialized medicine, a state owned broadcasting system, etc., are a reflection of how the free market, if it was allowed to, would work.(In this context, you should always speak of the
free market, not the market, as the market, free or not, is always at work. Even socialism is a product of market demand!)
A state owned factory looks a hell of a lot like a privately owned one; At least on the surface.
If the owner of something is not necessarily liable for how it's run, then no law giving blanket immunity for liability is needed just for some particular class of assets. This is just a carrot offered to businesses and holding companies as an incentive for them to become more directly controlled and taxed by the state.
If corporate law at times seems to approximate the way true liability, as determined in an objective court of law, is assigned, that isn't a justification for all the injustice, unfairness and distortions of the free market that come with it.