Strongly disagree. What good would it be for society, if you cannot sue a company? What about the consumption of all goods and services that society needs, which will not be produced without companies? Without it, basically everyone will need to fend for themselves about everything - produce their own food, own machines, own railroads, own airplanes, ships, cars, etc. (which will not happen, so society will have to make do without any of it). And for what? What benefit would we gain by letting go of this? Cannot think of much, certainly nothing material enough to warrant a serious consideration.

It's a foundational decision for a legal system, for sure. But, having legal personhood for companies has a lot more benefits than drawbacks.

For example, if we didn't decide to have it, then it wouldn't be possible for companies to enter intro contracts. It would have to be just be one (or more) person signing the contract in his name. The companies wouldn't be able to buy equipment, it would have to be owned by certain individuals in the company. But since these individuals cannot enter a labor contract with it, they can leave at any time, taking the equipment.

Without personhood, you would also forgo the concept of limited liability. Thus, every investor would be fully liable for all debts of the company, not just the amount they want to invest.

Without personhood, you are also unable to sue companies. You would have to sue individuals.

There are plenty of other examples, but these are the most important ones.

As long as you feel you got your money's worth, then I guess it's win-win.

Did you haggle? You always need to haggle in Turkey. If you got a ~70% discount or so, it was probably a fair price at that point.

They do, and a lot of great philosophers have thought about it. Descartes famously said "I think, therefore I am" and his work is dedicated on constructing a rational explanation of how reality works by abandoning even the most basic assumptions that philosophers before him took for granted. That quote basically says that the only thing we can be certain of is that since we are thinking, then we must exist, as we are doing that thinking.

Another weird philosophy branch in that area is called solipsism, which makes the unprovable (but also undisprovable) claim that everything we perceive is just our imagination, our brains playing illusions on us. Clearly the brain interprets the world by electrochemical stimulation coming from our senses. So if it were possible to send a brain in a jar the same signals your brain is currently receiving, then the brain in a jar would basically be perceiving the same "reality" you currently are, rather than its own (sitting in that jar).

If you really want to go down that hole, you should also check out the concept of Boltzmann brains.