From: KPJ (kpj@sics.se)
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998 - 23:00:49 MST
It appears as if Michael Lorrey <mike@lorrey.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.
|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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:02 MST