If you mean the contrast with the title, it doesn’t look to me like he demolished anything, more that the title is the hook more than the point. The body of th

If you mean the contrast with the title, it doesn’t look to me like he demolished anything, more that the title is the hook more than the point. The body of the article makes a careful distinction between “social responsibility of business” [nonsensical per the argument as I read it], “social responsibility of a business” [dubiously meaningful, more of a category error—same one as “corporations are afforded human rights”, funnily enough], “social responsibility of a business executive” [as far as their employment is concerned, advancing the aims of the owners, generically profit], and “social responsibility of a business owner” [same as for any other natural person, might entail establishing or funding a business to advance their goals]. ETA: Anyhow, my point was not whether or to which extent I agree with Friedman’s headline or article, it was that the quoted sentence seems like a generic argument against charities, which is neither economic-progressive (“left”) nor WSJ’s traditional economic-liberal (“right”), it’s just bizarre.