> Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. It seems more bizarre to hold specifically consumers responsible

> Arguing that consumers aren't responsible for the method of production seems bizarre to me. It seems more bizarre to hold specifically consumers responsible to me. They're generally many levels removed from the source, and, in addition to that, a lot of consumers have very low power. Nor have I heard of many successful boycotts. I didn't get the impression that consumers are terribly influential on the logistics chains they use, they're just a convenient scapegoat so we don't have to actually blame the actual creators of those chains. There are plenty of ranges of products I've never used. They still exist. Not using certain products would have a negative influence on me, which is OK, if I felt like this also had a negative influence on the logistic chain. But it didn't, and won't. The scale is just all wrong. Politicians and businessmen are who actually have influence, or sometimes sociological effects, and one can't trivially choose to be a part of a sociological effect, and most of them are not ethics driven. The thing that will make a difference is things like regulations. > Would you knowingly take cartel money as payment without any moral qualms? I'm not familiar with situations where one would take cartel money in the first place, and I'm not comfortable saying that something I bought at some point didn't, somehow, involve cartel money. But I imagine there are groups of people who buy something of the sort, drugs, maybe, and the logistical chain is, again, not caused by them, and they should worry about other things. Like not being addicted to drugs.