It is not clear to me why liberals have proprietary rights in the phrase 'socially-conscious investing.' Someone whose investment choices reflect a concern for individual liberty is of course also interested in the nature of the society in which he lives, and is therefore also 'socially conscious.' A champion of individual liberty wants a society in which there is more individual liberty and less government interference. To this extent, such a champion is also 'socially-conscious.'
But at this stage of the game it is perhaps best just to give liberals the phrase 'socially-conscious investing' to use in their biased way and reserve for ourselves the phrase 'liberty-conscious investing.' This is a large topic, and at the moment I offer only a few preliminary remarks provoked by this statement from Calvert Funds:
Companies in our portfolios must produce safe products and services in accordance with federal consumer product safety guidelines. Due to concerns about the impact of certain products on society, we do not invest in major manufacturers of tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, weapons, or firearms. We also exclude companies that operate gambling establishments.
Since I am a conservative, and not a libertarian, I have no objection to a certain amount of government regulation of the marketplace. Product safety is important and one cannot expect corporations whose stated aim is to benefit shareholders to maintain the highest standards with respect to product safety. But let's not forget that any product can become unsafe in the hands of an idiot, and that idiocy cannot be legislated or regulated out of existence.
Turning to alcohol and tobacco, why is is socially irresponsible to invest in companies that manufacture such products? Alcoholic beverages are a delightful adjunct to a civilized life. They relax, give pleasure, and lubricate the gears of social intercourse. They are not necessary to a civilized life, but a civilized life is precisely one that is not restricted to necessities. It is true that many abuse alcohol, but even more use it, and the ones who abuse it do so freely. And the same goes for tobacco. One can use it without abusing it or abusing oneself in using it. What better capstone to an excellent meal than a fine cigar? Or a celebration of the marriage by fire of burley and briar? Or even a good cigarette? I should point out to the uninitiated that the cigar- and pipe-smoker does not inhale, and that the depth of inhalation of the cigarette smoker is up to his own free choice. And the number and type of cigarettes smoked is also up to his free choice.
Now consider firearms. How could it be socially irresponsible to invest in companies that manufacture them when it is clear that firearms can be used for morally good ends? In the hands of the police and the military firearms are often used for morally good purposes. And the same goes for firearms in the hands of civilians. Guns can be used to kill, but also to prevent killing, and to limit killing. Many are the occasions on which the mere 'showing of steel' suffices to ward off a deadly attack. I don't have to shoot you to persuade you that there is no percentage in doing me violence. It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that guns can be used for morally evil purposes, morally good purposes and such morally indifferent purposes as plinking at inanimate targets.
One question I would put to liberals who oppose the manufacture of firearms is this. Would you agree to live in a place where police and military and civilian protection of the sort that requires firearms is nonexistent?
There is another important question that needs to be asked. If it is immoral to invest in companies that manufacture alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, then it should be even more immoral to invest in media conglomerates that market such evil and soul-destroying rubbish as (some) rap music. Think of all the socially deleterious junk that comes out of Hollywood. How can it be socially irresponsible to invest in a gun manufacturer, but not socially irresponsible to invest in a cultural polluter?
And if our liberal pals defend cultural pollution in the name of 'freedom of expression,' why do they not defend drinking and gambling and smoking and gun-owning in the name of 'freedom of action'?