> It appears as if Michael Scarazzo <email@example.com> wrote:
> |_I_ am trying to educate others that government is not the cure-all
> |that many believe it is. Business competition in a free and open
> |market will do much more for individual; thus for society. We are in
> |a society of individuals. For society to succeed, the good of the
> |individual must be placed above ALL else.
> I agree fully.
> |Nestle is doing what the government has allowed it to do. The
> |government that controls education and nearly everything else in that
> |nation state is being unethical by permitting a company to abuse it's
> |population. It does not provide a good education for the people and
> |the government's leaders benefit monetarily at the expense of those
> |who should be protected by them.
> Would the Nestlé corporation refrain from performing these "unethical"
> actions if there not existed a government? If so, why?
We have a very important legal principle up here in New Hampshire, which I'm sure some other jurisdictions have had in the past or observe now as well: caveat emptor (buyer beware).
I would not blame Nestle for distributing the baby formula to the poor people. I would blame the government of those countries for sponsoring the local distribution without putting any investment in a means of producing potable water sources to mix in the formula, and teaching people about hygenic practices. Another thing: the governments also knew that since mother's milk carries antibodies that the child needs in early development to help boost its immune system, but did not take action to remedy this by increasing vaccinations.
Now, I do fault Nestle for not doing something about those problems if it could have. I don't blame them for donating baby formula. The reason liberals rail against Nestle for this incident is that they are trying to scare private companies from doing as much charitable work as they do, so that more responsibility will land on government organizations.