In part 1 I took aim at Milton Friedman’s argument that the
only responsibility of business is to make a profit. It’s a theory that I fundamentally disagree
with. But, for arguments sake, I’m going
to turn the tables here and assume we accept Friedman’s argument. Friedman’s position stands in fairly stark
contrast to a few recent judicial rulings that many conservatives cheered.
Friedman clearly distinguishes a business from a
person. “What does it mean to say that ‘business’ has
responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an
artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but
"business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even
in this vague sense.” So accepting
Friedman’s premise that the only responsibility of a business is to generate a
profit also mean accepting the premise that a business is not a person. That’s fine.
I’m actually okay with a position that states that a business is not a
person. Republicans are not.
Here’s
why. A person has certain
responsibilities to society. With those
responsibilities come certain privileges.
If a business is not a person, then it can ignore societal
responsibilities. In that case, a
business is also not entitled to the privileges associated with those societal
responsibilities. Two fairly recent
cases have turned this notion upside down – allowing businesses the privileges
while not forcing them to accept the responsibilities – and Republicans love
it.
Let’s
start with Citizen’s United. Frankly, we
can largely ignore the specifics of the case as the broad ruling and it
implications are far more important and germane to this topic. In their ruling in the Citizens United case,
the Supreme Court removed limitations on political spending by companies. Prior to their ruling unlimited spending was
specifically restricted to individual donations. Now, corporate profits can be funneled into
any political cause or candidate the board wants to support. So, a privilege of being a U.S. citizen has
now been granted to corporations without changing the basic calculus that says
a business is primarily and foremost about making the biggest profit possible.
For
me, the more egregious ruling is Burwell v Hobby Lobby. The case centered on the question of whether
a closely held company could be forced to comply with the ACA’s contraceptive
mandate. The court ruled that such a
mandate violated the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Green family
(owners of Hobby Lobby). Once again, the
court has granted a privilege to a for-profit corporation without a
corresponding demand for responsibilities.
Take Friedman’s earlier argument and replace “responsibilities” with
“religion.” I think Friedman would agree
here that only people can have religion.
The Green family regularly attends church, I’m sure. And they have very sincerely held religious
beliefs that guide their daily lives.
I’ve got no problem with that.
However, the Green family is not Hobby Lobby. As a for-profit corporation, Hobby Lobby is a
separate entity from the members of the Green family who hold a stake in the
company. Hobby Lobby does not attend
church. Hobby Lobby has no sincerely
held religious beliefs. Therefore, Hobby
Lobby cannot object to a legal obligation on religious grounds.
If
Republicans are going to champion rulings that deem a corporation has sincerely
held religious beliefs and that corporations can now make unlimited political
contributions in the same manner as private citizens, then it would seem
logical that they would also expect corporations to behave as socially
responsible citizens. This again, is
essentially what Warren’s legislation proposes.
She wants to have a federal corporate charter that assigns
responsibilities to corporations to go along with the privileges that courts
have already granted. Seems reasonable
enough to me, and probably Friedman as well.
Although, he would more likely side with Democrats and argue that the
privileges shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment