More likely Friedman is arguing that companies should not be obliged by the government to have other goals — ssu
Well, pieces of paper cannot own anything.His argument is that the company is a legal fiction and so doesn't own the assets it appears on paper to own. — Isaac
...Which itself is the typical narrative based on stereotypes hauled against economists, especially the Chicago school.All of which conservative flag-waiving is aimed only at excusing sociopathic CEOs when they drive workers, the environment and social structures into the ground to increase their bonuses. — Isaac
So instead of addressing the actual article you choose to pretend it is other than it is? — Banno
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who
discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life.
A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose--for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objectives but the rendering of certain services.
There's far more philosophical debate in arguing if pet animals or wildlife can own something than non-living objects. — ssu
the above makes the counter point to the argument that you and ↪Isaac
uphold that Friedman see's profit making the only reason for corporations — ssu
Instead of the economy being run by economists we should ask entrepreneurs how to run the economy especially those from poor backgrounds because they'd know what needs the most priority in terms of how to succeed financially. Whether it's education, loans or transport etc — Gitonga
So I do stick to my view on this. — ssu
...there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud....
Actually there is a lot of problems with this outrageous idea, and it's quite peculiar that you don't notice it yourself.No, ownership is itself just a legal status with purely legal implications (none of this 'natural rights' bullshit). It can be legally assigned to a sofa just as well as to a person - If a company owns assets and a CEO has a legal right to assign them, then there's nothing surprising or philosophically problematic about it. — Isaac
In what country is you think that possible? Animals are not legal persons and cannot directly own property, at least for now. (You could argue that surely wild animals are at least stakeholders, that should have "rights", but that's a bit different.)Let's say a law exists that says the legal owner of my car is my cat. Another law exists which says that the legal responsibility for anything the cat does with that car lies with me, — Isaac
In what country is you think that possible? — ssu
An association may own a car, but the responsibility lies on the administration and if the members of the association decide to terminate the association, they decide what do with the car. — ssu
Cat's don't own anything in any country!Any country. — Isaac
Finally you get my point. But yes, associations can own cars and then the members of the association can use them as by the associations rules.Firstly, they don't just get to freely decide what to do with the car. They can't, for example, just keep it for personal use, that's embezzlement. — Isaac
Correct. And then also direct ownership comes with responsibility too.The association owns the car. People have the responsibility for it. — Isaac
Cat's don't own anything in any country! — ssu
Finally you get my point. — ssu
The association owns the car. People have the responsibility for it. — Isaac
Correct — ssu
Where is it possible?You didn't ask me where it happened, you asked me where it was possible. — Isaac
This is becoming quite ridiculous as you aren't even listening to what I say.That's my point, not yours. That a legal fiction (an association) can own something. You were disputing that. — Isaac
all these legal persons are basically contracts made by actual physical people, for some reason or another. Associations, trusts, companies, corporations are all basically vessels for people to organize various kinds of activities. — ssu
Yet if we assume that there isn't any physical person behind a legal person like a corporation, trust or association, then we have a problem. — ssu
If you assume a sofa can be the owner of a corporation, then there is no link of the responsibility to any human being. — ssu
You do understand the difference between an association and a stock company. — ssu
Why not? Ownership of, and responsibilty for, a thing are two different legal states. In a trust, the benefactor owns it, the trustees are responsible for it. — Isaac
So is your question about if ownership and responsibility would divided too in a stock company? — ssu
In law, a legal person is any person or 'thing' (less ambiguously, any legal entity) that can do the things an everyday person can usually do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on
Totally wrong.It's not a question, I'm rebutting your suggestion that it's ludicrous for a non-human to own anything — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.