If a random company with a very different mission (say, Intel) comes along and offers to purchase the company at a decent share price premium they pretty much have to take it, right?
... but it's how it's marketed to people so they believe it and follow Friedman's doctrine like gospel.
At this point it's a self-propagating meme. I frequently encounter people, learned people, who act like it is a law or moral principle (in fact, corporations aren't even required to be for profit even when operating commercially, they are just an organizational structure). When questioned, nobody can cleanly point where they learnt it, but actual check shows that Friedman Doctrine[1] was never written into law.
That said, the misconception can be tracked down to one person in 1980... that sounds more like an idea that got marketed - whether by Friedman teaching in university in certain way, or his students continuing that, or people taking the idea from his paper and teaching that... or newspapers passing it further...
At some point you start to wonder cui bono?
This automatically prevents them from mindlessly switching.
> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.
I'll be looking around at other SBCs, but I'm hapoy enough with my current RPi boards, just no longer confident I'll be happy with then in the future.
I love HN, but this is insufferable behavior. I also believe it’s why, despite our screeching, we accomplish absolutely nothing. You can’t accomplish anything when you’ve burned all bridges and then yelled “screw you.”