So, you would say that buying cheap goods, in the end, harms the poorest by supporting and perpetuating their exploitation? — Question

It's not a simple yes/no answer, it depends on - everything. Other things being equal, a trade is supposed to benefit both parties, and other things being equal, choosing best value keeps the market competitive and efficient.

But other things are not equal. Economic leverage tilts the supposedly level playing field to the extent that when you buy coffee from a peasant farmer in Colombia, neither of you benefits and both of you are harmed, because the coffee trader takes all the benefit. This is why people have found it worthwhile to start a charitable organisation to promote Fair Trade. So it is not buying or not buying that harms or benefits anyone, but the distorted economic power relations between multinational companies, and small traders and consumers.

You haven't given me much to reply to, Agustino, because you are changing what you have said, as you say more. You're a shapeshifter. And that's very boring because I rapidly lose the capacity to understand what you are saying, coming to the conclusion that you aren't really saying anything.

I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful. — Agustino

No, I haven't said it's just that. In fact, power has nothing with making people do what YOU want, only with making people do something. — Agustino

What could "making people do something", which is not "making people do what you want", possibly mean? I'm trying to condense our principal difference of opinion here. You think that authority, laws, etc., to be effective, must be enforced. I think that these things, to be effective, must be followed willingly, without the use of force.

But when I question you on the specifics of "following orders", you shift off, seemingly implying that one cannot force others to do what one wants them to do. So if you accept, and respect the fact that you cannot force others to do what you want them to do, how does your system of laws and authority possibly work, when it is based in the principle of enforcement?

because you are changing what you have said, as you say more — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not true, I am completing what I have said as I say more. I hope you're not naive enough to think I can express all my views regarding power, the law, how society functions, etc. in just 1 or 2 posts right? You should stop drawing conclusions so fast and start listening more carefully - especially you should stop drawing conclusions that I've never made myself.

What could "making people do something", which is not "making people do what you want", possibly mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

For example, I make them do what my boss wants them to do. You have to understand that getting people to do something doesn't necessarily have to align with my will.

You think that authority, laws, etc., to be effective, must be enforced. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't said this. This is exactly the bullshit that you do. I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced.

So if you accept, and respect the fact that you cannot force others to do what you want them to do, how does your system of laws and authority possibly work, when it is based in the principle of enforcement? — Metaphysician Undercover

I said there are circumstances when you cannot force others to do as you want them to. There's also circumstances when you can force others to do as you want them to. I have even given you examples. I cannot force my wife to do as I want to, because that's not how power works in that relationship. I can, however, force my client to do as I want him, because power can work that way in that relationship.

I've told you that you think very naively, precisely because you think power functions univocally, and the same means will be used regardless of circumstance. But that's not true. If I'm a politician, I can force someone to drop out of the race, and let me run in their place, if for example I have access to sensitive information on them. I won't be able to do the same in a personal relationship. Obviously. Power doesn't function the same way across the border.

Your employer might not care about you, as you're a simple substitute in the grand scheme of things; but, the person buying from you wants you to be there, producing and living to produce the goods s/he demands from your employer. — Question

So we are all giving each other burdens of work as life moves forward in one repetitious wheel where we are the proverbial, nameless cogs? Yay life. If you want pessimism, think of life in economic terms. Yes, I know, even entertainment can be seen in terms of supply/demand.. oh yay, even more things to suck the illusion of essential good out of something.

I haven't said this. This is exactly the bullshit that you do. I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced. — Agustino

For example, I make them do what my boss wants them to do. You have to understand that getting people to do something doesn't necessarily have to align with my will. — Agustino

Ok, so let's take this example then. In the work place, you can get people to do what your boss wants of them. Isn't it the case that the people are following the company rules, to get things done the way that the boss wants them done, without you enforcing the rules? The people are getting paid to follow the rules, and payment is incentive to them, so that they want to follow rules. It is not the case that the rules are "enforced", and in most countries it would be illegal to enforce the rules. If one does not follow the company rules it may be possible to fire that person, but this is not a case of forcing one to follow the rules, it is case of dismissing the person who does not follow the rules.

In this example, is it not the case, that money is what allows your boss to get others to do what is wanted of them? It is not force, nor is it even the threat of force which gives the boss the capacity to tell others what to do. Since money allows your boss to get others to do what they are supposed to do, do you think that money is equivalent to power, or is money a form of power?

I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced. — Agustino

I think it is the case that many laws exist which are not enforced. There are laws which are willfully followed, and it is simply a matter of people knowing the law, and wanting to follow the law, that supports the law. Clearly, in the work place, the rules are followed not because they are enforced, but for this reason, because people they want to remain a member of the company, take home their salary, so they learn the laws, and follow them.

This is the reason why I follow laws, not because the laws are enforced, but because I learn the laws, know them, and then I decide which ones of them, and in which situations, I should and should not follow them. The fact that I decide not to follow some laws some times, despite the threat of punishment by force, indicates that it is not enforcement which inclines me to follow laws.

Since it is really education, and training, which inclines people to follow laws, thereby supporting the existence of laws, and not enforcement as you keep insisting, the don't you think that the capacity to educate people is also a form of power? I think that education is the principal reason why people follow laws, therefore education is a form of power even higher than money. Even if someone wants to follow laws, to get paid, that person cannot do so without properly learning the law, and how to follow it.

I've told you that you think very naively, precisely because you think power functions univocally, and the same means will be used regardless of circumstance. But that's not true. If I'm a politician, I can force someone to drop out of the race, and let me run in their place, if for example I have access to sensitive information on them. I won't be able to do the same in a personal relationship. Obviously. Power doesn't function the same way across the border. — Agustino

Don't start speaking about naivety again. Whenever "power" is mentioned, you digress into speaking about force. But force is an abuse of power, an evil, and evil is the manifestation of ignorance. Since you do not recognize true power as knowledge and education, it is quite obvious that you yourself, are uneducated.

Ok, so let's take this example then. In the work place, you can get people to do what your boss wants of them. Isn't it the case that the people are following the company rules, to get things done the way that the boss wants them done, without you enforcing the rules? The people are getting paid to follow the rules, and payment is incentive to them, so that they want to follow rules. It is not the case that the rules are "enforced", and in most countries it would be illegal to enforce the rules. If one does not follow the company rules it may be possible to fire that person, but this is not a case of forcing one to follow the rules, it is case of dismissing the person who does not follow the rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

:s You are greatly puzzling me. What do you think enforcement of rules is if not the application of punishment for breaking them, whether that punishment is a temporary salary cut, being fired, etc. Rules are enforced precisely when punishments are applied for breaking them. The existence and application of punishment is enforcement.

Since money allows your boss to get others to do what they are supposed to do, do you think that money is equivalent to power, or is money a form of power? — Metaphysician Undercover

Money is a form of power, not equivalent to power I would say.

I think it is the case that many laws exist which are not enforced. There are laws which are willfully followed, and it is simply a matter of people knowing the law, and wanting to follow the law, that supports the law. Clearly, in the work place, the rules are followed not because they are enforced, but for this reason, because people they want to remain a member of the company, take home their salary, so they learn the laws, and follow them. — Metaphysician Undercover

First you talk about laws, then you talk about company rules. Decide. They're not exactly the same.

This is the reason why I follow laws, not because the laws are enforced, but because I learn the laws, know them, and then I decide which ones of them, and in which situations, I should and should not follow them. The fact that I decide not to follow some laws some times, despite the threat of punishment by force, indicates that it is not enforcement which inclines me to follow laws. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it doesn't indicate that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. It only indicates that enforcement is not sufficient to get you to follow laws.

Since it is really education, and training, which inclines people to follow laws, thereby supporting the existence of laws, and not enforcement as you keep insisting, the don't you think that the capacity to educate people is also a form of power? — Metaphysician Undercover

In any case, you're not talking about education, but rather how to get people to believe something. Propaganda has the same aim, and I doubt you'd call that education. Brute force, as I have stated before, is the least effective way to get someone to obey, which is why it generally is used last, when all other methods have failed.

But force is an abuse of power, an evil, and evil is the manifestation of ignorance. Since you do not recognize true power as knowledge and education, it is quite obvious that you yourself, are uneducated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Knowledge and education can be sources of power, as can money. Again, power doesn't have only one form. What you fail to note is that power constitutes the ability to get people to do something. There are multiple ways of doing this: one is brute force, another is propaganda, another is manipulation, another is education, etc.

And by the way, power can be used for both good and evil. Power in-itself is amoral.

You are greatly puzzling me. What do you think enforcement of rules is if not the application of punishment for breaking them, whether that punishment is a temporary salary cut, being fired, etc. Rules are enforced precisely when punishments are applied for breaking them. The existence and application of punishment is enforcement. — Agustino

To me, enforcement means forcing one to follow the rules. Payment for following the rules is not enforcement. Neither is not paying the person who does not follow the rules enforcement, because the person goes away unpaid and without following the rules.

No it doesn't indicate that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. It only indicates that enforcement is not sufficient to get you to follow laws. — Agustino

OK, so do we agree that enforcement is not sufficient for getting one to follow rules then?

In any case, you're not talking about education, but rather how to get people to believe something. Propaganda has the same aim, and I doubt you'd call that education. Brute force, as I have stated before, is the least effective way to get someone to obey, which is why it generally is used last, when all other methods have failed. — Agustino

Yes, I think that education is pretty much "getting someone to believe something". That's what happens when we go to school, we are gotten to believe things. Why we are taught what we are taught, and the truth or falsity of what we are taught, is irrelevant to what education is, and that is getting us to believe things. Why would you not class propaganda as a form of education? That doesn't make sense to me. Clearly propaganda is used to educate.

However, I do not see how brute force could get someone to believe something, this seems contrary to education. If all methods for education fail, and one is reduced to the use of brute force, then the brute force is not meant to educate, unless it is carried out as an example to others. More often though, it is meant simply to protect oneself from the uneducated barbarian, or something like that.

Knowledge and education can be sources of power, as can money. Again, power doesn't have only one form. What you fail to note is that power constitutes the ability to get people to do something. There are multiple ways of doing this: one is brute force, another is propaganda, another is manipulation, another is education, etc. — Agustino

I really do not see how brute force can get someone to do something. Do you think that after the person is beaten to a pulp, the person will be doing what is wanted of them? Perhaps the threat of force might get someone to do something, but that's not the same as force itself, is it? The threat of force is actually meant to get someone to believe that if they do not do what is wanted of them, force will be used against them. But this "getting someone to believe" is a form of education, it is not a form of force.

I think you should give up this notion, that force is at all useful for getting someone to do something. Clearly it is completely useless for such endeavors. And if power is having the capacity to get people to do things, then force is not related to power at all. The idea that force is related to power is an absurd misunderstanding.