a) switching the pants on a suit/pant combo so they'll fit you. or, switching shoes so you'll get 2 diff sized shoes for your feet so they'll fit you.
Why is it that people think that a store is so rich that it is okay to cheat them. If a store mis-matched the pants and didn't tell you, would you not be filled with righteous indignation and demand a refund? Let's say you do the above - the store owner sells the suit you screwed up and the buyer returns it for a refund - angrily. So you screwed the store and made them look bad with another (honest) customer. Isn't that peachy. Here's a radical suggestion - go to the store owner/mgr and ask them if they can accomodate you instead of taking the attitude that nobody matters but you. How would you feel if someone went to your office and messed with your work product, making you look stupid in front of your boss. Oh wait, that's different - you'd be the one getting screwed then and the evil store is actually in business to make money, hence they are evil.
b) switching tags on items, so that you can purchase something for a lower price
I believe this is what we call theft, unless it's over $100 and then it is felony theft. Anyone who does this is a thief, end of discussion.
d) hiding something before a sale, so that you can come back later and purchase it for the sale price. We're assuming that the store doesn't have pre-sale.
Ok, I'll relent a bit and call this aggressive shopping, part of the power shoppers bag of tricks. If you hide it at the bottom of the pile or back of the rack then fine... If you hide it in a vent in the dressing room for a month you are interfering with someone else's ability to put food on the table, maybe you should consider if you'd be happy about it if your boss said on payday "Hey, we decided to pay you next month, at 50%". Why is it that people make the assumption that a store owner is somehow an adversary who is out to steal their money? I just don't get that attitude.
e) wearing fur. I know this isn't popular in men's fashion, but let's say those full length fur coats from the Harvard-Yale games became popular again
At least be consistant. If you proclaim fur to be wrong, then you have to give up leather and meat as well. Either it is wrong to use other animals or it is not. In the case of an endangered/protected species I would be against it. In the case of mink? Hey buddy, it's cold and you are wearing my coat - run fast or die. It tickles me watching someone wearing leather shoes and eating bacon and eggs having a hissy fit over fur - unless the cow and pig who provided your shoes and breakfast were depressed and commited suicide together after filling out an organ donor card this is poor logic.
f) buying clothes from a country that is repressive, so that this money helps to prop up a dictorship. Or, buying clothes from a region where you know that the working conditions are very exploitative and that workers get paid just a pittance. I think this is referring to probably to every non NATO country
If those workers have their pittance cut off do they still eat? I hear what you are saying and agree with using your wallet to support or decline to support companies/governments you disagree with but let's be careful. If we are talking forced labor that's one thing, if we are applying American standards of a 'fair' wage we're not seeing reality. We have people in this country deemed poor who have a car, home, food on the table and are forced to live without premium cable channels on thier TV. Before boycotting a company that has what you deem to be exploitative employment practices be sure to ask the exploited whether or not they want thier job cut off and what they'll do if the factory closes.
h) how about buying products from companies that use child labor. Didn't nike have that problem. All i remember is that Air Jordan said that it wasn't his problem. Imagine if Kathy Lee Gifford had said that
Generally no. One of the earlier responses pointed out that in many places kids work and that helps the family eat. If we are talking 14 year olds folding shirts it is one thing, if we are talking 6 year olds cleaning out machines and losing fingers now and then because they have smaller hands that's another thing entirely. I'd settle for getting my child to clean her room.
i) Selling, buying 2nd hand items like on EBay. Before downloading, weren't singers complaining about how they weren't getting paid for their CDs sold by stores for used CDS. I think Garth Brooks made a fuss about this when he was the King. Can you use that same argument for when we buy clothes on Ebay.
Depends on the item. If the item is like Software that has been opened/used and the license agreement specifically prohibits resale then themaker has a right to complain. For something like a suit, a boat, a car, or a set of Ginsu knives from 80's infomercials why not? You aren't taking anything from anyone or exploiting anyone - you have property that you own exclusively that someone is happy to pay for at a reduced price - win/win situation. Garth's gripe, if I am not mistaken, was with the notion of people copying a tape/cd then selling it. In that case I can see his point - you have no right to sell his work without compensating him. Selling a bunch of CD's you no longer listen to is (my opinion) not hurting the artist, copying the files to your computer and burning CDs for resale or download is stealing from the artist. It would have been better had a young songwriter made the argument rather than a guy knocking down $50M per year though :-). Kinda like hearing Imelda Marcos complain that she did not have enough shoes to wear.