"But there's no particular reason why one could not have a legal system with one and not the other."<p>Yes, but if it's a matter of "a corporation should have some rights a human has, but not other rights", we're <i>already there</i>. The idea that corporation has all human rights is already transparently false. For one thing, anything that requires a "citizen" is going to be something they can't do.<p>Anyone who thinks that we've transitioned from "corporations have some of the rights of humans" to "corporations have all of the rights of humans" is emoting, not thinking. We've gone from one subset of rights, to another, to yet a third.<p>And they still have responsibilities, and in fact have some responsibilities that normal citizens don't have. The casual presumption, for those that are so presuming, that this particular transition is some sort of unique disaster or major shift in the balance of rights v. responsibilities is not justified.