I found an article that defines “exploitation” in a really interesting way, as “consent + abuse,” or abuse of someone who consents to suffer through the abuse out of necessity or desperation. I found it interesting because, in thinking about “exploitation” and how to combat it, I’ve tended to think of indirect rather than direct use of force as the means by which exploiters exploit others, but by this definition force need not be involved at all, (where by “force,” here, I mean “physical violence or deprivation of property,” i.e. Murray Rothbard’s definition of “force.”)
Defining “exploitation” in this way implies that it is not a form of “aggression,” (again by Rothbard’s standards,) and so leaves us with the necessity of combating it through non-coercive means, (if we oppose it and want to act in accordance with the NAP.) But it seems like a clearer way of defining it than I had been.
I wondered what others would think of the article, and of this conception of “exploitation.”