Again, as I stated earlier, the issue is personhood, not liability limits. Some limits on liability are reasonable. For the reasons being discussed.
All of these concerns could be addressed through some other mechanism, without conferring the rights of a person on en entity that is fundamentally incapable of being held accountable for its actions.
I once read an explanation of the differences between a corporation and a person. How many wheelbarrows of dirt can a person push in their lifetime?
whatever the answer, its a finite number. A corporation can hire people to push an infinite number of wheelbarrows. This was an example illustrating the fundamental difference in "income" between individuals and corps.
There's also the ability for a corporation to extend a pseudopod, shielded by liability limits, which it uses to engage in some questionable activity somewhere in the world. If its activities are deemed unacceptable, and its goals thwarted, the most the parent company stands to lose is the pseudopod. The functionally immortal corporation lives on.
In reality corporations resemble viruses or cancers far more than people. Or a yeast or mold. Growing for their own growth, with little concern for the medium in which they grow. Not like a "member" of the medium.
I know these are simplifications, but the question in the OP concerned corporate personhood, a legal fiction. Not limits on liability. Focusing on this aspect, which could be addressed in some other way, ignores the question in the OP.