Notes on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critique of Friedmam

Part I: the nature of rights
-positive rights
-negative rights
-the reciprocity thesis

Part II: the rights-based defense of the extreme free market view, and the authors’ criticisms.
-the argument from the right to individual liberty
-the right to liberty is the right to be free from human interference in one’s pursuits.
-but this implies that humans are free to enter into any economic transactions that they desire.
-but then this implies that no one, including the government, can interfere with one’s entering into such transactions. Their role is limited to ensuring that no one interferes with this liberty, and so ensuring that the economic activities of businesses stay free of coercion and fraud.

-critique of the argument:
-There is no such thing as a general right to liberty
-obviously, I don’t have a right to swing a baseball bat when another human being is within the radius of such a swing!
-So there are limits to individual liberty.
-But, as stated, the argument for the extreme market view depends on the right to liberty being completely general and unrestricted. So it fails as stated.
-But even if we modify the argument so that it is only based on a specific right to liberties that are compatible with the extreme market view, those liberties would come into conflict with other rights.

-the argument from the right to private property
-The right to private property is the right of a property owner to do whatever they want with that property.
-the constraints of government regulations (and some moral constraints) interfere with such a right: they interfere with your right to do whatever you want with your property
-So, such moral and governmental constraints conflict with the right to private property, and so need to be eliminated.
-But this is just to say that the right to private property implies that the extreme free market view is justified.

-critique of the argument
(1) There are many ways in which the right to private property comes into conflict with other rights (or the rights of others!), and so there are many cases that show that there are limits on the right to private property.
(2) To find out what these limits are, we need to look at some key justifications for the right to private property. Three key arguments for the right are:
(I) Utility: Allowing people a right to private property motivates them to work hard and be productive. If everyone is highly productive, then this will create more jobs and more goods and services. And this, in turn, means that their overall standard of living will increase.
(II) Autonomy: if we can’t own land and other kinds of property, then we will be dependent on others for our well-being. But if so, then to that extent, we are not autonomous. But autonomy is a necessary condition for a worthwhile life. Conversely, if we can (and do) own property, then to that extent we are independent of others, autonomus and capable of human flourishing.
(III) Fairness: It is only fair to be able to receive the “return” or outcome of your labor.
(3) Now if someone exercises a right in such a way that the exercise of that right conflicts with the justifications of that right, then this is obviously unacceptable. But the exercise of the right to private property - when exercised in an extreme free market - can conflict with the justification of that very right.
-So if a business owner uses her company in a way that is unfair to others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-And if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the autonomy of others, then her justification for that right is defeated.
-Finally, if a business owner uses her company in a way that diminishes the overall utility in a society, then her justification for that right is defeated.