As a practical matter I agree, but I think part of the general cynicism about corporations is that the Bierce definition so often seems appropriate. Even when a corporation is egregiously at fault in some matter, it's extremely rare to have the corporate charter revoked and the assets sold off. Sure, the shareholders could just go and form another corporation to do the exact same thing, but it would be massive inconvenient and thus serve as a deterrent from gross malfeasance.

As an example of such, consider this recent datum: http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2009/1...

I feel sure there must be some pragmatic medium between corporate fecklessness and the opposite case of unlimited liability.