d by doing so disagree with both on the subtleties of their opinions.
             As far as the big picture I interpret what Friedman and Sternberg say to mean that they believe business's primary responsibility is to shareholders. From this point of mutual agreement our views divert. Friedman uses phrases such as "to increase its profits" and "free competition without deception or fraud." I would argue, perhaps in a somewhat Machiavellian spirit, that fraud and deception need not be included as a limiting factor on corporate behavior.
             This sounds like an unethical position, but I qualify this position by stating Friedman, by placing this restriction, violated his own tenants by introducing a second social responsibility of business. Fraud and deception are uniquely defined, and punished, by society. In Friedman's case, when he says "without fraud or deception," (Friedman, 1970) he indicates that without these restrictions market forces might not control a corporation's use of fraud and deceit. Would it be possible to violate existing law or society's definition of fraud and deceit without it being detrimental to shareholders? The answer is no. The dramatic disappearance of Arthur Anderson lends credence to this argument.
             It is my opinion, as opposed to Friedman, that increasing profits is not necessarily a social responsibility of corporations to their stockholders. It is a responsibility only if the shareholders wish it to be. One argument in favor of my position is that of choice. If a group of investors wished to have steady dependable profit, rather than increasing profits, that decision should be their choice. This is a risk/reward question that must be decided by shareholders. It is common knowledge in finance that there is a relationship between risk and reward. Just as an individual investor is allowed this choice, a group of investors should also be allowed to make a...