Quote from: kiba on March 09, 2011, 04:04:36 PM

It's called a mutually profitable exchange.

Yes, but this rarely happens in a capitalist society because one party exercises his power over the other in order to get more than he would if he hadn't.

Quote from: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 04:22:07 PM

I did. let me put it in terms you will understand. My money is the condensed product of my labor. when I give my money to someone in order to acquire property, that property becomes mine through the actions of my labor. when you come along and take it, you are stealing the results of that labor.

let me break it down even more:

labor --> money --> property

when you take the property, you break that chain, rendering my labor moot. I should not need to continue laboring in order to keep my property. In order to extract more money from it, perhaps, but not simply to keep it. Follow?

I say you create property through labor and then exchange your surplus for something you need. Money can facilitate that exchange. If you tolerate the exchange of labor for property, between people, then you must also tolerate people owning other people as property because you cannot separate a person from his labor. Why anyone would participate in such an exchange comes from the fact capitalists will use coercion to increase the value of their property to the point where an individual, who has less capability to coerce, must exchange more property than he would have in the absence of coercion to get what he needs. Considering that capitalists can call land and other resources, which they haven't worked, property by using force to keep workers out, the workers have nothing to turn into property with their own labor, and therefore nothing to trade except themselves. As long as cooperatively minded workers remain in the minority, they must submit to the capitalist despots.

Quote from: BitterTea on March 09, 2011, 04:46:08 PM

Or perhaps he does not wish to expend the time and effort to start a business himself, and wishes to use the resources Alice has made available to make some easy, risk-free money.

Perhaps he does. He still should own that which he produces from his own labor. If Alice is good at making organized workplaces he can pay her for the organized workspace that she produces.

Quote

Again, your proposed society and the ideology it embodies leaves no room for individual desires different from your own. Anyone who agrees to accept a wage is either a fool, and anyone who offers a wage is an exploiter.

You forgot that Bob could also be doing Alice a favor.

Quote

The idea that one party is putting themselves at much more risk, and both parties enter into the agreement willingly flies completely above your head.

You mean the risk of default against her lenders? This risk is the product of exploitation.

Quote

I would like to see you explain why Bob is being exploited, why he deserves to be paid "fairly" (at the same rate as Alice, who has more risk). You have provided no such explanation as yet, only that you know better than everyone else, including Alice and Bob.

Just because Bob is foolish doesn't mean he deserves to own less than the product of his labor. If Alice uses her greater intelligence to take too much of what Bob has produced in exchange for too little of what she has produced, that is exploitation. If Bob is aware that he is getting too little for too much and is okay with it, that's a favor. If Bob gets off on getting too little for too much, that is a fetish.

Quote from: kiba on March 09, 2011, 04:50:18 PM

Quote from: BitterTea on March 09, 2011, 04:46:08 PM

*actually, I agree he deserves to be paid fairly, but only Bob can make that designation

Only Alice and Bob can make that designation as to what is fair and what is not fair. Everybody else who are not involved in the affair, GTFO.

If Alice uses coercion, trickery, or deception to affect the exchange, it is objectively not fair.

Quote from: myrkul on March 09, 2011, 05:01:22 PM

You did hit a major, relevant point, however: upkeep. You DO need to keep investing labor into a piece of property to keep it in the same condition. If you're fine with your house falling apart after you've bought it, feel free to do no maintenance on it. The resale value will go down, as will any potential income you might make from renting it, until it's worth nothing at all for either purpose, but you can do it.

If you choose not to maintain the house you live in, you still own it because you occupy it. If you abandon it, you cease to own it.