I’m not convinced by that standard explanation; that the state sanctioned it and thus it came into being. It seems to me that it happened the other way around, that people pooled their capital then it was necessary to determine liability. The standard explanation hints at the belief that human interaction is enabled by the state, rather than the other way around. Its as believable as the statement, the state offered marriage licenses so people began to enter into marriages.
There is a distinction between a stock holder and a manager that deserves a difference in liability.