Not sure what you mean by "arbitrary or detached ownership." Private ownership is still maintained in corporations whose stock is publicly and freely traded. Foundations, by their very nature, have no private owners. So by Objectivist standards, in which all (non-government) property should be private, I do not think that foundations are legitimate entities.

For-profit corporations are privately owned, and thus would exist in some form within an Objectivist society (which would likely be far less litigious). However, I don't think foundations are private property as an Objectivist would define the term.

If America was less litigious there would be a good deal less need to create entities as avatars for business. For example, we were sued in Federal Court for putting out an unauthorized biography in comic book form. We won, hands down. However, as a new company it cost us around $35,000 to defend ourselves, which pretty much wiped out our bank account. Had we lost the corporation we formed would have been bankrupt, but at least we would have preserved our personal assets.

Such as one of the most recent and outrageously glaring Clinton Crime Cartel Foundation with all foreigner bribe money eagerly accepted.
But that was okay.
After all, it were those o so precious Clinton lib elites of all lib elites, the Evil Hag and her "bimbo eruptions" protected rapist darling Billy (aka Slick Willie aka The Teflon Man).

When I win the Megamillions, it's going into a foundation or trust managed by me and a couple of people who think like me and it will last long after me. It will not be for charity.

"does a person have a right to create a legal entity that is not privately owned"

Strictly speaking, no, because rights are personal - not public. I can create a corporate entity, perhaps, but it's legal status can't be dictated by me alone. Legal status is granted by the rest of society and is usually governed by laws so that everyone understands the proper process and agree on the method and parameters employed. So the first question I would ask is step back and say "Would an Objectivist society create legal laws which recognized and legitimized the creation of corporations - ie companies of arbitrary or detached ownership." The alternative is to simply say that no legal status will be granted to any corporation or association which is not privately held.

That brings up a second question: if "public" corporations are not allowed, how does one go about raising investment money through stock offerings, etc.?

It is objective to give foundations a tax exempt
Status only to then have those same foundations fund the destruction of the rugged individualism, that is what the minutes of the carnage foundation meetings contained among other statist agendas.

Foundations have been working at undermining our freedom and country for 100+ yrs .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RgRG...

That's an issue that hasn't yet been addressed in depth. Corporations usually do have owners and thus are private property, but their structure might be somewhat different in an Objectivist society.

Interesting. I am not one to know, but raises another question (maybe it's the same question) of how they would handle public companies and corporations.

The personal trusts you mention have both a limited duration and ultimate private owners. The university foundations could be replaced in principle with donations made directly to the programs favored by the donors. Some of the larger foundations, structured to exist indefinitely, contribute to political and social causes that can vary widely from the intent of the original founders.

And there still remains the question: Under Objectivist legal theory, would the assets of a foundation or trust be considered private property? If not, do such arrangements violate the principle that all (non-governmental) property should be private?

"both foundations and trusts would fall into this category."
If my wife and I should both die before our kids are adults, our wealth would go into a trust for the kids' benefit. A financial institution would manage the trust and pay for their expenses, including the cost food, rent, entertainment, education, a house, or a well-planned business, all up to reasonable limits. When they're 30 y/o, they'd get the rest.

How would this wealth be managed without trusts? We could give it relatives to manage, but they might get sued for something unrelated or have an addict or thief in their life steal it. I also like the notion of the people caring for our kids being different from the place managing their wealth, so the could sort-of keep one another from going overboard.

Foundations
Our UU society has a foundation managing its wealth. Some people want to donate money to a fund that will be earmarked for a specific purpose such as the music program, social justice, maintaining the building, or children's programming. I think having the foundation helps people fund the things they want to fund.

Thanks, CBJ.

A person might want to set up a private foundation to fund political, cultural or charitable causes beyond his or her lifetime. My question is whether a foundation or trust is a proper means of doing so in an Objectivist society, since the assets of such an organization are not private property.

My point is that without income taxation there may be no reason that anyone will want to use a private foundation.

In today's legal system, private foundations and trusts have some tax advantages, but that wouldn't be an issue in an Objectivist society. A more fundamental question is whether such an entity should be granted legal status in a society that is based upon private ownership of property. Foundations and trusts are not privately owned.

Why do people today use a private foundation? In an Objectivist society, what would be the reason to set up such a foundation?