I think a way to state this that you can&#x27;t semantically object to is:<p>We live in a society in which those who control large corporations argue that it is virtuous to relocate significant portions of the business to locations which are cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting workers and&#x2F;or the environment, and thus consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving.<p>This opens up a counterargument that it should just as equally be virtuous to purchase medication from places where the retail price is cheaper due to more lax or nonexistent laws protecting intellectual property claims in pharmaceuticals, by which process consumers back in the US receive the same quality of product but at a lower price thanks to the location-based saving.<p>After all, protection of workers, protection of the environment and protection of intellectual property are all sliding-scale values; if it&#x27;s fair for one person to do arbitrage on one of these in order to make money, why shouldn&#x27;t it be fair for another person to do arbitrage on another?