Does Friedman's view that individuals should bear more responsibility for adapting to change alleviate the social security responsibilities of governments and corporations?

Core Conclusion: Yes, Friedman's theory did advocate for reducing the social security responsibilities of government and corporations

Simply put, your understanding is accurate. Friedman's core belief was that a free and efficient society should rely to the greatest extent possible on individual choice and individual responsibility. Consequently, the roles of government and corporations should be strictly limited.

However, this does not mean he advocated for a cold, ruthless, dog-eat-dog society. To understand his reasoning, we can use an analogy.

Think of society as a continuously flowing "River of Opportunity"

The ideal society in Friedman's view resembles a dynamic, ever-changing river.

The River Water (The Market): The river itself is the market economy, constantly flowing and changing, sometimes placid, sometimes turbulent. This flow carves new channels (new industries) and washes away old banks (obsolescent industries). This is inherently natural and healthy because it creates new land and opportunities.
The Individual (Swimmers/Boaters): Each of us is a swimmer or boater in this river. Friedman believed that the primary responsibility of every individual is to improve their swimming skills and boat-building capabilities. When the river changes course, you should learn to adjust your direction, or even switch to a sturdier vessel (learn new skills), to seek out new, well-flowing channels (new job opportunities). You shouldn't expect the river to stop flowing for you.
The Government (River Managers): The government's role is not to row your boat for you, nor to command where the river flows. Its responsibilities are:
1. Setting the Rules: Ensuring the river channels remain navigable, such as by placing buoys (laws), and punishing those who deliberately ram others in the river (enforcing contracts, combating crime).
2. Providing Basic Life Preservers: Friedman was not opposed to the most basic social safety net. He even proposed the concept of the "Negative Income Tax." Simply put, this involves giving direct payments to people whose income falls below a certain threshold, ensuring they won't "drown." However, he opposed complex, multi-layered welfare systems run by government bureaucracies because he believed they sap people's motivation to "swim" for themselves.
Corporations (Large Ships): Corporations are the large ships on the river. Friedman famously stated: "The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits." This sounds harsh, but his point was: The captain's sole responsibility is to steer the ship well, transporting cargo safely and efficiently to its destination. If the captain diverts money meant for cargo to do charity, or changes course to accommodate a crew member's feelings, this not only betrays the ship's owner (shareholders), but inevitably leads to inefficiency. Such inefficiency means the ship could sink in competition, causing everyone to lose their jobs. By operating efficiently – providing jobs, producing quality goods, returning value to shareholders – the corporation is fulfilling its greatest social contribution.

So, why does this reduce the responsibility of government and corporations?

Based on the analogy above, we can clearly see the division of responsibility:

Increased Responsibility on Individuals: You must take responsibility for your own career. If market changes cost you your job, you cannot primarily depend on the government or your former company to "support" you indefinitely. You need to proactively learn, adapt, and seek new opportunities. This is an active, forward-looking responsibility.
Narrowed and Clarified Government Responsibility: Government ceases to be a "parent," responsible for every individual's cradle-to-grave welfare and job placement. Its responsibility shifts from "guaranteeing outcomes" (ensuring you have a job) to "guaranteeing opportunities" (ensuring the market is fair, preventing you from losing everything due to fraud, and providing a basic life preserver when you are truly struggling to survive).
Purified Corporate Responsibility: Corporations no longer need to act as "social activists." Their core responsibility is to comply with laws and compete efficiently in the marketplace. They are not required to provide lifetime employment guarantees for employees, nor to bear the responsibility of solving broad societal problems like poverty. These issues should be addressed either through individual effort, or minimally by government mechanisms that do not interfere with the market.

The Controversy: Is this theory viable in reality?

Friedman's theory is logically consistent but has attracted significant criticism. Key criticisms include:

Unequal Starting Positions: Some people are born on luxury yachts, others in leaky tubs. Is it fair to expect the latter to be as responsible for their "swimming ability" as the former?
Who Bears the Cost of Transition? When an entire industry (like coal) vanishes, can a 50-year-old miner realistically retrain as a programmer? Can individuals truly bear the burden of such structural unemployment alone?
Corporate Influence: Modern large multinational corporations are no ordinary ships; they are "supercarriers" (or even corporate juggernauts), capable of influencing the river's flow (through lobbying and shaping policy). In such a context, demanding they only "be responsible to themselves" might exacerbate societal inequities.

Conclusion

So, back to your question: Friedman's viewpoint did indeed place the primary responsibility for adapting to change on individuals, thereby significantly reducing the traditional social security burdens on government and corporations.

He argued that while this approach might be painful for some in the short term, it ultimately sparks societal vitality, efficiency, and innovation, benefiting everyone in the long run. He believed that a free market composed of countless individuals striving to "swim" would lead to a far more prosperous and free society than one where government plans the routes and corporations provide cradle-to-grave support.

Naturally, this perspective remains hotly debated in economics and public policy circles. Exactly where to draw the boundary between individual responsibility and collective security is likely a question every society must continually explore and answer.