Maybe it's worth putting some reference to Coase's "Nature of the Firm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm). To me, Coase is the anti-Friedman (both at Chicago, both Nobel laureates). At my basic level of understanding, Coase asked "If free markets and coordination by prices and contracts is so great, why do most people work for companies which are run like the USSR in the 1950s, with all-powerful bosses setting top-down targets?". I believe that Coase got his ideas by noting that Russia did not collapse after the revolution as everyone expected in the 1920s, but actually (sort of) thrived.
I take issue with our host's argument that the Friedman doctrine strips corporate actors of social responsibility. Au contraire! It imposes an impossible degree of social responsibility on corporate actors: that they be utter political eunuchs, passively accepting whatever law is given by their government. In Friedman-world, all corporate lobbying is tantamount to Murder, Inc. seeking an exclusive license to conduct its trade.
Outside of Friedman world, corporate social responsibility is the price that firms pay for corporate social power.
Writing like this makes my peabrain spin. How far down the rabbit hole do you take his concept?
Corporations are artificial persons created by the sovereign. The sovereign's demands supersede the privileges of the manager.
In the ideal world of the libertairian is the sovereign artificial and the ideal sovereign is the corporation. To steal from Marx, government by the corporation will replace capitalism/democracy. Will the United Nations be replaced by the United Corporations?
I'm a few chapters in and enjoying the new book quite a bit. I think more bits of the book that didn't quite make it would be interesting, as well as material that changed enough that you'd write something new. (The evolving world of LLMs for example.)
In actuality there should be seen as no duty from an employee (even management) to an employer, unless explicitly laid out in the employment contract. The employer hires an employee and hopes for the best, just as the employee accepts hiring from an employer and hopes for the best. They each can take whatever lawful actions they deem best.
Maybe it's worth putting some reference to Coase's "Nature of the Firm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm). To me, Coase is the anti-Friedman (both at Chicago, both Nobel laureates). At my basic level of understanding, Coase asked "If free markets and coordination by prices and contracts is so great, why do most people work for companies which are run like the USSR in the 1950s, with all-powerful bosses setting top-down targets?". I believe that Coase got his ideas by noting that Russia did not collapse after the revolution as everyone expected in the 1920s, but actually (sort of) thrived.
I take issue with our host's argument that the Friedman doctrine strips corporate actors of social responsibility. Au contraire! It imposes an impossible degree of social responsibility on corporate actors: that they be utter political eunuchs, passively accepting whatever law is given by their government. In Friedman-world, all corporate lobbying is tantamount to Murder, Inc. seeking an exclusive license to conduct its trade.
Outside of Friedman world, corporate social responsibility is the price that firms pay for corporate social power.
Writing like this makes my peabrain spin. How far down the rabbit hole do you take his concept?
Corporations are artificial persons created by the sovereign. The sovereign's demands supersede the privileges of the manager.
In the ideal world of the libertairian is the sovereign artificial and the ideal sovereign is the corporation. To steal from Marx, government by the corporation will replace capitalism/democracy. Will the United Nations be replaced by the United Corporations?
I'm a few chapters in and enjoying the new book quite a bit. I think more bits of the book that didn't quite make it would be interesting, as well as material that changed enough that you'd write something new. (The evolving world of LLMs for example.)
In actuality there should be seen as no duty from an employee (even management) to an employer, unless explicitly laid out in the employment contract. The employer hires an employee and hopes for the best, just as the employee accepts hiring from an employer and hopes for the best. They each can take whatever lawful actions they deem best.