[lvass]

>On paper it should be a good thing

Not really. Most people have terribly low time preference. Democracy for example is a very bad idea when you account for that (read Hoppe for a detailed explanation). Public company ownership is much better because it doesn't suffer from one vote per person, but still susceptible to much of the same management problems, specially in a society that already favors lower time preference by other means.

[avadodin]

I do not deeply disagree with your statement but I do not see the two as exclusive.

I think distributed public ownership placed in a corporation ruled as proposed here provides a chance to harvest residual good decisions from a citizen/shareholder who cares as opposed to having a single decision derived from some other issue a majority of citizens favor.

Unless you're talking about doing away with any kind of voting but Communism doesn't exactly have a stellar track record.

[guelo]

fwiw, Hoppe has become a darling of the extremist authoritarian "alt-right" (curtis yarvin, etc) but has been rejected by more mainstrean thinkers including most libertarian factions.