I found this debate between John Mackey, Milton Friedman and TJ Rodgers to be very interesting. Of the three, Mackey is the only one who seemed to truly appreciate the way that libertarian economic theory and propaganda is disconnected from human nature and society. Probably the most ironic aspect of the debate was the way that Rodgers excoriated a strawman made from Mackey's arguments, and then Mackey ended up slapping him right back down by observing that Rodgers' business, despite being built on "profits for investors uber alles" (ie: the investors are the alpha and omega of the business; it's sole raison d'etre) it has lost its investors far more money than it's made. That's just downright sad when considering the fact that Whole Foods has found a way to not only generously donate funds to its communities, but to integrate charity spending into its promotions so that it gets a solid return on investment (and has been far more profitable than Rodgers' Cypress Semiconductors).
Mackey made several very good points, one of which is that a company cannot serve its investors by putting profit maximization above all other values. Profit maximization as the highest value is simply institutionalizing greed as a virtue, and greed is never virtuous. The wise man knows the difference between greed and ambition, and the way that greed often reduces people from reasonably rational individuals to single-minded, self-destructive creatures like Gollum. The current banking debacle is a great example of what happens when a business is run by an intense, obsessive need for higher and higher profits; the large, greedy megacorps are in ruins while the small, more conservative, community-focused banks like some of the ones near me in Virginia are either quite healthy or recovering quickly.
What Friedman and Rodgers both missed is that in a free, well-ordered society, businesses do have a role in protecting their communities. Human nature abhors a vacuum, especially the sort of vacuum created a quasi-Nietzschean form of capitalism where only isolated individuals help one another. Mackey was correct in pointing out that the majority of the world rebels against capitalism because it has been advocated by men who only acknowledge a minimal responsibility that businesses have to their communities. It is extremely difficult for foreign workers, especially ones in traditional societies, to believe that capitalism is for their own good when the same men say that businesses have no duty to their workers, that they're just fungible units of productivity to be disposed of the moment that a cheaper labor source is found.
The attractiveness for me of Mackey's view of libertarianism is that it could form a popular basis for a Christian libertarianism, since unlike typical secular libertarianism, it has a quasi-Christian understanding of the moral order of the world. As Mackey said, social responsibility should not be coerced, but in a well-ordered, free society, it is healthy for a business to be active and involved in its community as a good provider of services and products, employer and investor in the common good.
Mackey made several very good points, one of which is that a company cannot serve its investors by putting profit maximization above all other values. Profit maximization as the highest value is simply institutionalizing greed as a virtue, and greed is never virtuous. The wise man knows the difference between greed and ambition, and the way that greed often reduces people from reasonably rational individuals to single-minded, self-destructive creatures like Gollum. The current banking debacle is a great example of what happens when a business is run by an intense, obsessive need for higher and higher profits; the large, greedy megacorps are in ruins while the small, more conservative, community-focused banks like some of the ones near me in Virginia are either quite healthy or recovering quickly.
What Friedman and Rodgers both missed is that in a free, well-ordered society, businesses do have a role in protecting their communities. Human nature abhors a vacuum, especially the sort of vacuum created a quasi-Nietzschean form of capitalism where only isolated individuals help one another. Mackey was correct in pointing out that the majority of the world rebels against capitalism because it has been advocated by men who only acknowledge a minimal responsibility that businesses have to their communities. It is extremely difficult for foreign workers, especially ones in traditional societies, to believe that capitalism is for their own good when the same men say that businesses have no duty to their workers, that they're just fungible units of productivity to be disposed of the moment that a cheaper labor source is found.
The attractiveness for me of Mackey's view of libertarianism is that it could form a popular basis for a Christian libertarianism, since unlike typical secular libertarianism, it has a quasi-Christian understanding of the moral order of the world. As Mackey said, social responsibility should not be coerced, but in a well-ordered, free society, it is healthy for a business to be active and involved in its community as a good provider of services and products, employer and investor in the common good.
One of the things I've been trying to balance is the dichotomy between irresponsibility and absolute liability when it comes to libertarianism and corporations.
The corporation arises historically as a way to limit personal liability - e.g. ship owners might incorporate so lawsuits from families of drowned sailors didn't completely bankrupt them; without limited liability it would be hard for any entity smaller than government to accomplish anything even remotely risky. But it also allows for irresponsibility, because a guy could incorporate a mining company, mine a bunch of lead, leave a polluting mess that will harm the people downstream, pay himself a huge dividend, then dissolve the corporation. In that case, someone else must clean up the mess, for actual polluter no longer exists. Irresponsibility is thus rewarded, which undercuts a lot of libertarian arguments about how markets are supposed to suppress irresponsible behavior.
So given that corporations are a) creations of government (and so have no "rights" not granted by government), b) prone to irresponsible behavior, and c) absolutely necessary, how does the libertarian deal with this huge mover in modern society in anything like Libertarian terms? He can't treat them like a "person" for they truly are not, and yet if he does not, his libertarianism is irrelevant because it is predicated wholly on the rights of persons.
You would have to establish a pattern of assigning liability to employees or particular large owners who given illegal orders or take illegal actions. In your example, the law would have to be written in such a way that the police and courts could pinpoint the toxic chemical dumping to certain managers, employees and even investors (in some cases) and then hold them personally responsible.
So, I think the concept of limited liability would have to become a "presumption of no liability" wherein the government could impose personal liability if it discovers that you used the cover of a corporation to engage in illegal and/or damaging behavior.
In general, I have to say that I've come to find that garden variety libertarianism is nowhere near as well thought out as advertised on a number of issues. For example, my favorite question, that usually gets gasps of "well they'd never do that!" is an immigration quiz:
If China opened savings accounts in the US for 30,000,000 unmarriageable, working class men with low educations, deposited $100k each, and announced that it was banishing them to the United States, how should the federal government respond to China dumping millions of undesirables on our soil?
Interesting read. I think the disagreements among the authors has a lot to do with ownership. The owner can do what he will with the business, but who does and should own it?
While I have become increasingly for capitalism, I think some of what passes for it isn't. I am uncertain about corporations, and and not too happy about the stock market, at least the way it is currently practised. Private ownership would not face this debate.