Well, libertarians believe in natural law doctrine as a core belief, right? So you must have rights which can never ever be given up, not even by contract. In

Well, libertarians believe in natural law doctrine as a core belief, right? So you must have rights which can never ever be given up, not even by contract. In the scenario it wouldn't be that no one would want to enter contract with the company because it couldn't provide those protections. Many protections are a result of inalienable rights, so you can't have a contract which removes those protections. Since the organization wouldn't have legal personhood, it would mean that the owners and/or employees would be personally liable if the company were to violate one of those inalienable protections. That makes investment or membership in those organizations extremely unattractive. For many types of organizations this isn't necessarily a problem, but for organizations in many sectors such as healthcare, anything that requires hazardous labour, the automotive industry, private security, etc..., it means that investment is really not a good idea because your personal liability might put you in jail. This is of course because the organization couldn't negotiate a contract with it's clients where the clients would give up these protections, because these kinds of protections which derive from natural rights can't be given up. So in the end you need legal personhood to protect the investor class, otherwise capitalism doesn't really work anymore when investors are too afraid by personal liability. And that's why legal personhood for the purpose of general enterprise started 300 years ago and is now a thing everywhere save for North Korea (even Cuba and the USSR had to allow citizens to form limited liability entities with legal personhood for economic activity, because even when you don't allow investors, limited liability turns out to be very practical when you have partnerships with very large numbers of partners)