4 ms·

It's a very common point of view, famously championed by Milton Friedman[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr

• vannevar 8y ago
  More like a common misconception. If shares were distributed broadly, Friedman's view might make sense, and perhaps he was assuming that overall, it is. But stock ownership is not broad, it is exceedingly narrow---a tiny fraction of the population holds a wildly disproportionate share. So if corporations, which impact virtually everyone's lives, truly owe a duty only to their shareholders, it would be deeply autocratic. Friedman is simply wrong: all corporations are chartered by government, and consequently have a duty to promote the general welfare, above and beyond their duty to enrich their shareholders.
  • Retric 8y ago
    In practice companies don't act that way. Further, organizations can be for profit, non profit, or not for profit each of those are distinct things. So what distinguishes companies from other organizations is simply the profit motive, otherwise they would be something else. That said, they can have other motives on top of profit seeking and need not seek profit over all other goals.
    • vannevar 8y ago
      It's not a question of motive, but of duty. Corporations, as creations of democratic government and not purely private property, should be held to a higher standard of public responsibility than individuals. Regardless of motive, corporations should not be permitted to put profit ahead of the public interest.