Certainly. The previous poster covered some good points, but I'll give you my answer since you asked.
What is 'humanity'? I don't believe there is any such thing as a 'greater good', only individual interests, which would be better represented by 'trans-national corporations.
Okay, but would you agree that certain things serve only a few people's individual interests while severely harming most other people's interests? For example, I could make a ton of money by researching the next superweapon and selling it to North Korea. That would serve my individual interest. Is that the kind of thing economic globalization *should* do? Do you *want* this to be the direction things go?
Or, another example: it used to be that you could not patent living organisms, but in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that you can. Monsanto then patented its genetically-modified seeds. This means farmers who buy seeds from Monsanto -- which controls 90% of the soybean market -- cannot replant their own seeds each year. Even poor farmers in the Philippines and India are expected to pay royalties and they must buy new seeds from Monsanto each year. India is home to the largest number of hungry people in the world. The US Supreme Court could reverse its ruling on the patents, or India could choose not to respect US patent law. This would serve the interests of 200 million people in India having adequate nutrition at the cost of some profit loss for Monsanto. Or, we could view this situation as right and good, since Monsanto is just serving its own interests as it ought to do, if they can grab a bigger profit and millions of children go hungry, who cares?
Regulation by whom? I see the state entity as parasitic upon society. Who regulates the regulators? This should be left to sort itself out. If enough people care enough about an issue to actually do something about it, it will get done. This is the free market. A nanny state only impedes this process. Austrian economics 101
How about regulation by elected representatives of the people? If a company uses the streams we drink from or the air we breathe as waste dumps, making profits but raising the cancer rates of society, who's being "parasitic"? Why can't voters, the people, regulate the regulators? You say an environmental issue should be left to sort itself out. But what this really means in practice is that a tiny number of corporate managers will interfere with and pollute our air and water. When cigarettes were left to sort themselves out, the reality was that the cigarette companies sorted out that their products were safe for consumers. In the next sentence you contradict yourself, saying if enough people care to do something, things will actually get done. Yes, but that is the opposite of leaving an issue "to sort itself out". And one way for people to do something and for things to get done, is to vote for laws that protect our air and drinking water. The only difference between this kind of management of our shared resources, and the "free market" variety, is that in the latter case environmental management is intended to serve the few and the rich, instead of the many.
Do you believe in self ownership?
Sure.
If you do this conclusion only follows. A company is the property of an individual, not something that exists as public property. The only inherent 'responsibility' of a company is to take care of itself, ie, its shareholders.
The question is, *should* the only social responsibility of a company be to deliver profits to its shareholders. Emphasis on "should". Wouldn't it follow, by your reasoning, that no one should have any social responsibilities? If a man has a heart attack on the street, I should not call 9-11. After all, my time, energy, and cell phone are the property of an individual -- me. My only inherent responsibility is to take care of myself, i.e. not get to my destination 5 minutes late, saving the 5-minute cell phone charges that I would incur, and saving the precious food calories I EARNED that would be wasted by dialing 9-11. What am I, a charity?
It seems to me that if anyone should have any social responsibilities at all, then it follows companies should, too. How much responsibility companies should have is a fair question, but it shouldn't be *zero*, should it? If a company could increase its profits slightly by refusing to hire black employees, would that be okay?
