When discussing the notion of “corporate social responsibility,” a standard libertarian response is “the responsibility of a corporation is to earn a profit.”
I understand the idea here, but I think it’s overly simplistic and ultimately destructive of the cause of free markets.
What if the path to profit for a business is through more regulation, higher taxes, and more spending? Does that corporation have the responsibility to lobby for these intrusions on freedom? How can a philosophy of freedom tolerate — even encourage — deliberate attempts to abridge freedom?
On Monday I wrote “Thank Wal-Mart for your new bank-card fee.” Wal-Mart led the lobbying charge for price controls on banks that issue credit cards, giving the Federal Reserve the right to determine what was a reasonable fee for credit card issuers and processors to charge retailers. Cutting into this profit model pushed Bank of America to start charging customers for using debit cards.
Most of the responses I received were from libertarians telling me, in effect: no, Wal-Mart is not blameworthy, they were simply pursuing profit maximization. Wal-Mart has no duty to the public. It’s the lawmakers, like Durbin, who served special interests rather the public interest, who are culpable.
I’m not interested in who is more culpable. I just think it’s impossible to defend free markets without differentiating between earning profits morally and earning them immorally. Stealing land doesn’t become moral just because the government says it’s okay. Forcibily extracting people’s wealth through taxes and subsidies is robbery.
Maybe pocketing an existing subsidy is fine, but lobbying to create a new one crosses a line. Benefitting from regulation might be morally acceptable, but lobbying to restrain your neighbor’s freedom is the same as using force against him.
Too many libertarians are allergic to the notion of morality in the marketplace.
