So says Henry Manne, dean of the George Mason University School of Law, in this opinion piece, "Milton Friedman was Right."
An integral part of the older notion of public utility regulation required that the enterprise be, or act like, a monopoly (whether "natural" or not), in order to be affected with a public interest. But in today's confusion, there is no such requirement. No arguments, weak as they are, about natural monopoly, market failure, government creation of corporations or the alleged government gifts of limited liability and perpetual existence, are required to justify the demands now regularly placed on business entities. Any large enterprise, no matter how competitive its industry and no matter how successfully it is fulfilling the public's desires, has a social responsibility--a term that makes mockery of the idea of individual responsibility--to use part of its resources for "public" endeavors. Today's favorite causes are environmental protection, employee health, sales of goods at below-market prices, weather modification, community development, private enforcement of (not merely abiding by) government regulations and support of cultural, educational and medical facilities.
How did this transposition from private to public responsibility come about? After all, even the largest corporation started simply as an idea in someone's head. At first this person hires employees, borrows capital or sells equity, produces goods or service and markets a product. Nothing about any of these purely private and benign arrangements suggests a public interest in the outcome. But then the business begins to grow, family stock holdings become more diffused, additional capital is required and, voilà, another publicly held corporation. In other words, another American success story.
But what has happened to implicate public involvement in the management or governance of these enterprises as they grew from a mere idea? Nothing. And if that nothing be multiplied by tens or hundreds or thousands, the product is still zero. So where along the line to enormous size and financial heft has the public-private nexus necessarily changed? True, there are now a large number of complex and specialized private contracts, but every single one of these transactions is based on private property, freedom of contract, and individual risk and reward. If one apple is a fruit, even a billion apples do not become meat.
The origins of this transformation lie in the minds of people who do not like or appreciate the genius of capitalist success stories, including always politicians, who will generally make any argument in order to control more private wealth. Of course, the social responsibility of corporations is always tied to the proponents' own views of compassion or justice or avoidance of a cataclysm. But the logic of their own arguments requires that essentially private corporations be viewed as somehow "public" in nature. That is, the public, or the preferred part of it, often termed "stakeholders" (another shameful semantic play, this time on the word "shareholders"), has a pseudo-ownership interest in every large corporation. Without that dimension in their argument, free market logic would prevail.
The illusion of great and threatening power, the superficial attractiveness of the notion, and the frequent repetition of the mantra of corporate social responsibility have made this fallacy a part of the modern corporate zeitgeist. Like the citizens who were afraid to tell the emperor that he was naked, no responsible business official would dare contradict the notion publicly for fear of financial ruin, even though the practice continues to cost shareholders and society enormous amounts. This is especially so in large-scale retail businesses like Wal-Mart or Coca-Cola or BP that are highly vulnerable to organized public criticism. Our laws against extortion do not function effectively when it comes to corporations. And so to some extent these private entities have indeed, via the social responsibility notion, been converted into crypto-public enterprises that are the essence of socialism. Milton Friedman was right again.
What say you, Mark Sargent? Let's have a "Law Deans Corporate Law Smackdown."
The Washington Post reports:
As much of Washington started to shut down for the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday afternoon, Brian O'Neill Jr., a Georgetown University undergrad and founder of the Apostles of Peace and Unity, sat outside the office of the city zoning administrator, angry.
His sentences were short, his tone frustrated. His faith, the college junior said, was being challenged, and he didn't like it.
"I don't know what we're going to do right now," he said.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Yesterday, when many MOJ contributors and readers were occupied with preparing for the Thanksgiving Day feast, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams and His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI met at the Apostolic Prayer (whether crumpets or cornetti were served was not disclosed). Both the Pope and the Archbishop presented their respective addresses [HERE]. Afterwards they issued a Common Declaration [HERE].
The three texts all discuss matters such as dialogue, friendship, and ecumenism. However, I found the Pope’s published address to be a revealing text. Twice he mentioned the search and work for “full visible unity” between the Anglican Communion and Rome. This is an important statement free from general platitude and the ambiguities that often accompany diplomatic exchanges. The Pope acknowledged that obstacles continue to “keep us apart.” And what might those obstacles be? The Pope was not reticent in providing insight.
After noting the existence and effect of negative influences and pressures that the “secularized Western world” have on Christians as individuals and as communities, the Pope identified two major problems that fortify the separation without saying they are the only ones. The two specified are: (1) the ordained ministry; and (2) certain moral teachings. It could well be that within this second concern lies another line of questions pertaining to what are the beliefs held by the Anglican Communion? The fault lines of the present day found within the Anglican Communion indicate the plausibility of these questions. The Pope lamented that these vital topics he mentioned not only affect the relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, but they also make uncertain the future of the Anglican Communion itself. For the Pope, these two issues are of vital importance to the continuing discussions between the Apostolic Palace and the Lambeth Palace. In this context, the Pope concluded on a prayerful and hopeful note that the Anglican Community will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition of the common patrimony essential to the “full visible unity” of which the Pope spoke.
If this were Wimbleton, the Holy Father was successful in keeping the ball in the other’s court. But keeping score really was not Benedict’s purpose. His objective was to send his welcome guest back home with a list of important questions that must be addressed by the Anglican Communion so that when the guest returns he will not only find an open door but also an expectation of presenting answers to the previously posed questions—answers that are essential to determining whether “full visible unity” is possible. RJA sj
Thursday, November 23, 2006
"It being the indispensable duty of all nations, not only to offer up their supplications to Almighty God, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his Providence in their behalf; therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged…do hereby recommend it to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of Thursday, the twenty-eighth day of November next, as a day of solemn thanksgiving to God for all his mercies; and they do further recommend to all ranks and testify their gratitude of God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by protecting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."
Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of October 11, 1782, 23:647. The Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, ed. Worthington C. Ford, Gaillard Hunt, et. al., (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904-1937.
Taken from a Michael Novak lecture.
Have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I dunno, Greg. I was stuck behind a conservative the other day. He was driving a giant Cadillac, going 25 in a 45 MPH zone, and taking up two lanes, impeding everyone else's progress. His (right) rear turn signal kept blinking even though he never deviated from his path. He was deaf to the desperate honking of everyone behind him, and I was choking on his exhaust fumes -- or maybe it was the sight of his Bush-Cheney sticker!
-- Mark
Combining our exchange about the charitable giving patterns of conservatives and liberals with the posting on the Pope's appeal for road-safety during the holidays, Mark Sargent asks (tongue in cheek) "who are better drivers, liberals or conservatives?"
With tongue even more firmly planted in cheek, I must say I am surprised that Mark needs to ask, as it obviously would be conservatives, who are more capable of perceiving the realities of the world and thus have the clear and unobstructed eyesight necessary to see the road and the obstacles ahead.
Moreover, given the tendency of liberal economic, tax, education, and welfare policies to drive the economy, public education, and the culture into the ditch, we must be wary of trusting liberals behind the wheel.
Greg Sisk
Rowan Williams has just given us a profound, inspiring, beautiful meditation on the Benedictine contribution to our past and, perhaps, to our future. The Archbishop's insights into the saint's understanding of obedience, and what it might mean for us in political society, are especially rich. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/061121.htm
