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.”
Making up new definitions for words makes communication difficult. I assume the motivation for this trickery is to deliberately obfuscate an argument, as I can’t think of any other reason why people would do it?
As for the article, I could only make it a few paragraphs — this drivel makes you and Empifur sound logical and concise. 😉
But, for you, I’ll pretend to take the definition seriously for a second:
“Consent + Abuse + Desperation = Exploitation”
Some people pay good money for abuse, and they would tell you they desperately need it. Which is to say ‘exploitation’ by this definition is clearly not necessarily aggression, which is to say that if you would like to ‘combat’ this type of non-aggressive so-called ‘exploitation’ and abide by the NAP, then yes, you are correct: your attempts at ‘combat’ must be non-aggressive.