Social concerns are not unimportant, but they should be left to other institutions in society." [13].
Friedman presents two main arguments for his position. [14] First, since corporations are funded by stockholders, they are the owners and any profits belong to them. Secondly, stockholders rights to the profits are protected by contract amongst the various corporate stakeholders (customers, employees, managers, etc). Friedman considers any attempt by management to use some of the profits to address social concerns as an extra form of taxation on the stockholders (without representation). He feels that since corporate managers are not elected officials they have no jurisdiction or mandate to choose one social need over another. If all corporations were to do so, he argues, it would likely skew the entire system and interfere negatively with the invisible hand that so effectively creates what he considers to be the inherent fairness and efficiency of the market place in a so-called "free society.".
In discussing social responsibility, Friedman summarises his views in his book, Capitalism and Freedom: "[In a free society ] there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.".
Many theorists have found Friedman's extreme laissez faire view of business responsibility to be untenable. For example, Joseph Desjardins and John McCall [15] consider Friedman's ethical position -- that business managers should ignore all ethical considerations other than one; to maximise profits -- to be quite radical. Why? Because, first, this view conflicts with the accepted view of ethical responsibilities. Desjardins and McCall also point out the political implications of a society in which government does not interfere except to prevent fraud, coercion, or deception.
