Maybe my comment is clearly written by someone who has no background in economics.  But  your comment is clearly written by someone whose life has not been lived out in a country where Friedman's ideas have been given free reign.  Also, did you not read the Shock Doctrine, or did you conclude its argument was unfounded?

I am sure I speak for others when I say I read economists here talking about these matters on a level so entirely removed from reality and am dumbfounded.  Economics is a tool to serve society, not itself.  The purity or consistency of some economic theory means nothing if in the end, the majority of people are not benefiting from it.  It's navel gazing with lethal consequences.   How we can sit here and rue the infinite number of crises facing humanity and turn around and state "a company's sole responsibility is to lawfully increase profit for its stockholders" when these crises are legally YES! legally benefiting corporations or even sometimes caused by them - I simply do not know.  

Also, uhm, the laws are such around here that companies shape legislation more than citizens.  Which is why their actions are legal.  So we have to change the laws?  Tell me, how we can do so and respect that a company's sole responsibility is to lawfully increase profit for its stockholders?   We're in a catch 22 here and eventually if we do not accept that companies have a larger obligation to society, we have no argument on which to base, oh, a law that would require AIDS patients who cannot afford treatment have access to it anyway.

So easy to be a free-market proponent when your access to healthcare is guaranteed.

Or maybe you meant "primary" instead of "sole."

Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.