Quote from: Atlas on March 02, 2011, 12:43:56 AM

I simply cannot comprehend how letting somebody use your property at both parties consent could be considered exploitation in any way, despite all ignorance on either side.

It's exploitation when you don't have a free choice. Sure, we can choose our exploiters, but what kind of choice is that?

Quote

Your logic dictates that every individual is entitled to fix all ignorance they come about; however, that requires them to not be entitled to their own time.

In the end, it is not even realistic to enforce against such "exploitation".

The idea isn't to enforce against exploitation, but become aware and stop tolerating it.

Quote from: barbarousrelic on March 02, 2011, 12:53:54 AM

So Adam should either give these things away for free or not sell them at all.

No. If you own that which your labor produces, you can sell it. Adam doesn't have anything to charge Bob for except maintenance. Merely letting Bob live in his basement doesn't require labor from Adam. So, charging rent means getting money for nothing.

Quote

With only these choices, the world is going to be significantly more miserable.

Why? You and I would control the products of our labor instead of having to hand over that control to our choice of a selection of exploiters.

Quote

In an attempt to keep Bob from being 'exploited,' Bob is going to end up cold and homeless.

No. In a world free of exploitation, Bob could construct his own shelter or share one with others, like Adam, and contribute his labor to its upkeep. Sounds pretty okay to me.

Quote from: Atlas on March 02, 2011, 12:58:22 AM

Property with terms and conditions isn't really property at all. I've only seen this ideal work in reality within hippy communes.

What terms and conditions?