In this post, we put forth our understanding of trust between two entities, A and B. Specifically, we argue that there always has to be an entity, E, abstract or concrete, to ensure the fulfillment of what the trust promises. We further argue that if no such E exists then the relationship is based on power, not trust.
We define trust to be a belief by entity A that entity B would perform an action X. Note that here A and B could be a group of people or even an individual.
Now, it's very easy to see the need for the existence of E using Neti-Neti. If B reneges on the promise of X, then there has to exist an entity, E, to ensure that B is held accountable for their actions. Now we give some examples of E.
Trust could be based on institutions that can enforce laws. For example, when A and B are individuals who are meeting, then there's an implicit trust that B would not physically assault A. If the trust is breached, law enforcement can hold B accountable. Here, E is law enforcement.
E can also be an abstraction. When A and B are friends, and A trusts B to do X, then the entity E is Time. That is, if the trust is broken, then the friendship might break, and in the future, when B needs A, A might not come through to B's aid. So, there's a belief in Time and its vagaries.
Trust could be based on a belief in religion or culture. For example, in the case of religion, E could be God or Nature. In the case of culture within a group, E could be reputation, i.e., if B reneges, then their reputation can be tarnished inside the group when B is an individual, and amongst similar groups when A, B are a group.
Trust could also be based on weapons. For example, it has been argued that nuclear powers don't fight because there's a trust in the power of nuclear weapons. Here, E becomes nuclear weapons in the concrete sense, or their mutually destructive nature in the abstract.
Trust could also be based on logic. For example, if A has a good understanding of B's options and interests, then logic would force B to do X, assuming B is rational. This is also very common in interpersonal relationships.
Trust could be based on morality. This is common in interactions between individuals of different cultures. The individual assumes that the other person is not a sociopath and proceeds with it. Note that when this trust is breached, it can lead to significant problems in very individualistic countries.
So, as we saw in all these examples, there always is an entity E that needs to exist to prevent B from reneging on X.
If no such E exists and B cannot be held accountable for their actions, it essentially means that A cannot do anything but live with what B does to them, this means that the relationship is based on power, not trust.