Friedman’s claim is that these voluntary contractual arrangements maximize economic freedom and that economic freedom is an essential condition for political freedom. Ultimately, the existence of capitalist markets limits the number of politically based decisions and thereby increases freedom. In addition, Friedman’s arguments assume the reality of a vigorous democracy in which citizens regulate the rules of the game and businesses do not effect the progression by which those rules are determined.
The core of Friedman’s arguments rest on corporations’ obligation that is only to profit maximization for stockholders, signifying business engaging in sole endeavor of profit maximization will inevitably promote social good, and that’s where the fundamental objection is strong because within that literature corporations have responsibilities to society beyond profit maximization (Rowley and Berman 2000), that includes not only shareholders, but also employees, competitors, consumers, suppliers, communities, governments and the natural environment itself (Arnold, Beauchamp & Bowie 2013). As illustrated in the modern world businesses hold large amounts of power, the question of morality and moral truth is asked. An example can be drawn from the announcement recently made by Telstra, that the company will be slashing eleven hundred jobs with possibly more in future time (Wilkins 2013). However, Wilkins (2013) reported that for the past five years Telstra have had three billion dollars as annual profits, so the question comes why cut of three percent of Telstra’s thirty thousand Australian workforces? Telstra chief operations officer Brendon Riley stated that cuts would allow the company to grow other areas of its business, in other words it means the importance of shareholders are being put before the workers, meaning the obligations meeting their interest, ultimately the intent of maximizing profits as to the argument made by Friedman. The action made would absolutely create value for the company to be more profitable,