It appears as if Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
|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).
Some jurisdictions acknowledge the existence of stupid people and consider it illegal to take advantage of their foolishness, some don't.
|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
In what way do these States sponsor Nestlé local distribution? Where do these "poor" States get the money to invest in such practices?
|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.
Interesting conspiracy theory.
I find it more probable that these "liberals" simply follow their ideology.
People in the U.S.A. might consider that ideology a conspiracy, however, with the whole political scene in the U.S.A. being more rightwing than e.g. the European.