Re: boycotting of corporations

Thu, 17 Dec 1998 07:00:49 +0100

It appears as if Michael Lorrey <> 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
|increasing vaccinations.

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.