Norm, your points are all well and good, however, I think you are mixing apples and oranges, and missing my thesis. Nowhere do I object to Mackey's philanthropy decisions, or the shareholders' support of that vision. That is what voluntary ownership is about. Thus my point about "shareholders" as vs. "stakeholders."
What I object to is the term "stakeholder," its definition, and Mackey's very obvious reference to the corporation's responsibility to the "common good." Mackey openly supports the notion of hangers-on (stakeholders) having a stake in a corporation without having purchased an investment in that corporation. There is nothing Austrian about that. That investors "view Mackey's business as efficient" means exactly that: investors. Stakeholders is a term that encompasses non-investors as well as investors, and thus does Mackey fall prey to collectivist hogwash. You do know, by the way, that "the environment" is typically considered one of the most important "stakeholders" in the modern use of the term?
Corporate philanthropy is a great thing, and individuals may speculate/invest based on their assessments of a corporation's overall social vision. That too is a great thing. Socially conscious shopping is a great thing, because it's voluntary. But Mackey's notion of what a corporation owes society is a separate issue altogether, and that notion is not a great thing. Mackey does nothing objectionable in the operation of his business, but his visions concerning corporate responsibility pander to the anti-capitalist yelpings of the collectivist parasites that look to feed off of the blood, sweat, and tears of others. Also see Jeff Scott's piece.
