> It appears as if Michael Lorrey <email@example.com> 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.
Mentally retarded or otherwise incapacitated individuals are protected. Those who are too lazy to research the person they do business with are not. Laziness is not stupidity.
> |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?
Because these countries are all very command oriented, so Nestle could not have distributed the product without the blessing of the powers that be. Those governments had the responsibility, and fudged it. Don't blame Nestle for the poor government oversight in those countries.
> Where do these "poor" States get the money to invest in such practices?
There is plenty of money that is fed to these countries as 'aid'. That they choose to siphon it off to line their pockets rather than serve their people is not our concern.
> |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.
Really, then why are the liberals not foaming at the mouth about how the government's stupid policies in SE asia which exacerbated the crash down there? For the same reason feminists blithley ignore Clintons workplace harassment of Paula Jones but charge with tar and feathers after any private industry executive who does the same. Its pragmatic politics, not principle that is acting here.